Woman entitled to maternity leave even after birth of child: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High recently held that the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 (Act) permit maternity benefit to a woman even after the birth of child [Saroj Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others]..Single-Judge Justice Ashutosh Srivastava was of the view that under the Act, a woman has the right to avail maternity leave even after the birth of child and this benefit can even be extended in a case of a legal adoption of a child of less than three months."The Act of 1961 was enacted to secure women's right to pregnancy and maternity leave and to afford women with as much flexibility as possible to live an autonomous life, both as a mother and as a worker, if they so desire," the Court observed.The Court was hearing a petition moved by one Saroj Kumari, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari against the order passed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah, whereby, she has been denied maternity leave on the ground that maternity leave cannot be granted after child birth. The order also stated that the petitioner can only apply for child care leave under the Act..The petitioner was posted as headmistress of the primary school of Heerapur in Etah district in the institution run by the Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj. The service conditions of the petitioner were governed by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981.On October 15, 2022, the petitioner gave birth to a girl child and after discharge from the hospital, she immediately applied for maternity leave for the period from October 18, 2022 to April 15, 2023 (for 180 days). However, the same was rejected on the ground that annexures in support of maternity leave were incomplete.The petitioner applied again for maternity leave on October 30, 2022 in the prescribed proforma, but it rejected by the District Basic Education Officer, Etah with remarks that the petitioner is not entitled to maternity leave after child birth and is only eligible for child care leave and therefore, she can only apply for child care leave.Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court..Before the Court, the petitioner stated that the 1961 Act was enacted by the parliament to regulate employment of women in certain establishmenta for certain period before and after child birth and to provide maternity leave benefit and certain other benefits. Therefore, the denial of the maternity leave to the petitioner on the ground that the child was born, and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to the maternity leave is per se illegal and erroneous.It was also submitted that the child care Lleave is distinct from the maternity benefit and operate in different fields and relegating the petitioner to avail child care leave was totally unwarranted. Moreover, it was highlighted that the respondents stopped the salary of the petitioner since November and December, 2022.On the other hand, the respondents have supported the rejection order and stated that there was no infirmity in the same..The Court examined the purpose of enactment of the 1961 Act, which is to regulate the employment of women in certain establishments for certain periods before and after child-birth and to provide for maternity benefit and certain other benefits.The Court further analysed Section 5 of the Act, which talks about payment of maternity benefits to a woman for the period of her actual absence beginning from the period immediately preceding the day of her delivery, the actual day of her delivery and any period immediately following that day. The provision further provides for the maximum period for which any woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit..Considering the preamble and the provisions of the 1961 Act, the Court observed,"These provisions have been made by Parliament to ensure that the absence of a woman away from the place of work occasioned by the delivery of a child does not hinder her entitlement to receive wages for that period or for that matter for the period during which she should be granted leave in order to look after her child after the birth takes place. The Court underlined that Section 5 entitles a woman to maternity leave even after the birth of the child."From the perusal of the Preamble of the Act, Section 5 (1), third proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 5, sub-section 4 of Section 5, it is more than apparent that the Maternity Benefit can be extended even after birth of a child. It can even be extended in a case of a legal adoption of a child or less than three months."However, the Court cautioned that the maternity leave may not be granted for entire 180 days or 26 weeks..With regard to the option of child care leave put forth before the petitioner by the order of the District Basic Education Officer, the Court placed reliance to decision of the Supreme Court in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal and others (2022), and stated,"Availability of child care leave to the petitioner or grant of the same cannot dis-entitle the petitioner for grant of maternity benefit. Maternity benefit and child care leave both operate in different fields and are mutually exclusive.".Regarding the interpretation of the provisions of the 1961 Act, the Court was of the view that a purposive interpretation is required to be adopted since the grant of maternity leave is intended to facilitate the continuance of women in the work place."It is a harsh reality that but for such provisions many women would be compelled by social circumstances to give up work on the birth of the child if they are not granted leave and other facilitative measures. No employer can perceive child birth as detracting from the purpose of employment. Child birth has to be construed in the context of employment as a natural incident of life and the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act are required to be construed in that perspective," the Court observed..Therefore, the Court set aside the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Etah, who had refused to grant maternity leave to the petitioner after birth of child.Further, the Education officer was directed to release the arrears of salary and pay the salary month to month to the petitioner as and when the same falls due.Lastly, the Court ordered the officer to pass fresh orders keeping in mind the provisions of the Act. .Advocate Satyendra Chandra Tripathi appeared for the petitioner.Advocate Shailendra Singh appeared for the respondents..[Read Judgment]