Legal Aid body denies maternity benefits to its panel lawyer; Delhi High Court comes to the rescue

Maternity Benefit Act of 2017 does not discriminate on the basis of the nature of employment, the Delhi High Court recently observed while directing the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to release medical, monetary, and other benefits to its own empanelled legal aid counsel (petitioner) [Annwesha Deb v. Delhi State Legal Services Authority]..Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that it was “ironic” that the petitioner, who was appointed with the Juvenile Justice Board to protect the interest and welfare of the justice, was not able to secure benefits necessary for the best interest and welfare of her own child.The Court was called upon to consider the question of whether the petitioner was entitled to maternity benefits while working on a contractual basis.The judge had to further examine if the DSLSA was liable to pay maternal benefits to her at par with such benefits granted to regular employees.The Court found that there was nothing in the language of the Maternity Benefit Act to suggest that a working expecting woman is barred from getting maternity benefits due to the nature of her employment.The Court further noted that while medical science may have advanced over the years, the natural care for a newborn child cannot be dispensed away with.“Nature certainly does not discriminate on the basis of the nature of employment of a woman when it blesses her with a child. The miracle of childbirth and the process a woman goes through during such time must not be hampered by any extraneous events that may affect the health and well-being of the mother and cause her any degree of distress,” it added.The Court added that if a woman is made to choose between her family life and career progression even in this day and age, it would be a failure of society.Justice Singh also observed that while the Maternity Benefit Act terms the reliefs given by it as "benefits", such reliefs should ideally come as a matter of right for pregnant women employees.“In this respect, a positive change of perspective is also required along with a more adaptive approach in the matter of grant of maternity benefits,” the Court said..As such, the Court held that the DSLSA ought to have extended maternity benefits to the petitioner, adding that the law is settled that the nature of employment shall not decide whether a woman employee would be entitled to maternity benefits..The case concerned a legal aid counsel attached to the DSLSA, who had been appointed in May 2016. In April 2017, she conceived a child and in October 2017, she applied for maternity leave of seven months. However, the DSLSA denied her request. She challenged the same before the High Court.DSLSA maintained that the petitioner was not entitled to claim maternity benefits since she was only an empanelled advocate who discharged her services and was not its employee to whom such benefits accrue.The Court, however, dismissed DSLA's stance that the relationship between it and the petitioner was that of a "client and advocate" and not an "employer and employee. Since the petitioner was being paid a fixed wage for her services, the Court further held that she was covered under the definition of wages as under the Maternity Benefit Act..The Court proceeded to hold that the petitioner was entitled to maternity benefits for a period of 26 weeks. The DSLSA was ordered to do the needful within three months.“It is, however, made clear that the decision as aforesaid has been made in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case and shall not be treated as a precedent,” it added..Advocate Dr. Charu Wali Khanna represented the petitioner.Advocate Sarfaraz Khan represented the DSLSA.[Read Judgment]