Can Maternity Benefits go beyond fixed-term Contracts? Key Supreme Court decision

I recently spoke with a woman who shared a troubling experience—she was denied maternity benefits because she was a contract employee, and her maternity leave would have extended beyond the expiration of her fixed-term contract. This situation surprised me, but I advised her to contest it in light of the Supreme Court judgment that clarified this very issue. Inspired by this conversation, I decided to write this article to raise awareness and ensure that women know their rights under the law. 

In the case of Dr. Kavita Yadav v. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department and Ors., a crucial question was involved: whether maternity benefits, as enshrined in the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (“Maternity Benefit Act”), could extend beyond the term of a contractual employment.

Background of the Case

Dr. Yadav, a Senior Resident at a Delhi government hospital, was employed on a fixed-term contract. As her contract neared its end in May 2017, Dr. Yadav applied for maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act. The hospital granted her only 11 days of leave, reasoning that her contract was expiring and no further extension was permissible.

Dr. Yadav challenged this decision, but both the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court upheld the employer’s stance. The High Court denied Dr. Yadav maternity benefits beyond the term of her contract referencing Section 5(1) of the Maternity Benefit Act, which entitles women to maternity benefits at the rate of average daily wage “for the period of her actual absence…” and consequently presupposes that the woman would be “present” at work if not for the maternity leave. The High Court interpreted that the concept of “actual absence” in the Maternity Benefit Act implied an existing employment contract. Since Dr. Yadav’s contract was ending, she wouldn't be “absent” as she would not be expected to be present. The High Court believed that granting her 180 days of leave would amount to an unintended extension of her contract.

The Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court’s decision centered on the legislative intent of the Maternity Benefit  Act, emphasising the autonomy and rights of women as both mothers and workers. The Hon'ble Court highlighted several key aspects of the Act:

1. Section 12(2)(a): Protection Against Dismissal This provision safeguards a woman’s right to maternity benefits even if her employment is terminated during pregnancy. The Hon'ble Court noted that Dr. Yadav met all eligibility criteria under the Act, making her entitled to these benefits regardless of her contract’s expiration.

   
   

2. Maternity Benefits vs. Leave The Hon'ble Court clarified that the Act grants “maternity benefits,” not merely “leave.” These benefits are independent of the employment duration and cannot be denied based on the end of a contractual term.

   
   

3. Overriding Nature of the Act Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act grants it supremacy over conflicting contractual terms. The Hon'ble Court concluded that limiting maternity benefits to the duration of a contract amounted to “discharge” under Section 12(2)(a), which the Act prohibits.

   
   

4. Maternity benefits are not co-terminus with employment: The Hon'ble Court referred to Section 5(3), which entitles a woman's successors to receive full benefits even if she passes away during or after childbirth. This reinforced that benefits are not limited to the employment period.

   
   

5. Broad interpretation of "discharge": The Hon'ble Court held that the term "discharge" in Section 12(2)(a) has a broad meaning and would include discharge on the conclusion of the contractual period.

   
   

Relevant Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court bolstered its decision with references to two significant cases:

1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Female Workers (Muster Roll) & Anr. (“Muster Roll Case”): This case held that even women engaged on casual or daily-wage basis were entitled to maternity benefits, reinforcing the idea of a notional extension of employment for granting such benefits.

   
   

2. Deepika Singh vs Central Administrative Tribunal & Others: Though addressing different leave rules, this case reaffirmed the principle that the Maternity Benefit Act ensures women’s autonomy, enabling them to balance motherhood and professional responsibilities.

Conclusion: A Landmark Ruling on Maternity Benefits

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Kavita Yadav’s case is a testament to the progressive interpretation of labour laws in India. By asserting that maternity benefits are not contingent on the continuation of employment, the Hon'ble Court has reinforced the legislative intent of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. This ruling ensures that the rights of pregnant women are safeguarded, irrespective of their employment status, marking a significant step towards gender equality in the workplace.

Employers and policymakers must take note: maternity benefits are a fundamental right, not a privilege tied to the whims of contractual employment. This decision sets a clear precedent, protecting the dignity and well-being of working mothers across India.