The Delhi High Court on Thursday stated that under the Maternity Benefit Act, contractual female employees are entitled to relief.
The court emphasized that maternity benefits hold immense significance as an inherent aspect of a woman’s identity and dignity when she decides to embrace motherhood.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh underscores the importance of fostering a work environment that enables unhindered decisions. This environment should ensure that a woman can harmonize both her career and motherhood aspirations without being compelled to opt for an “either-or” choice.
The judge pointed out that the Constitution endows a woman with the freedom to bear a child and the choice not to. Maternity leave and benefits are globally recognized instruments for safeguarding the health and well-being of both mother and child.
The court stated in its order, “Maternity benefits do not merely arise out of statutory right or contractual relationship between an employer and employee but are a fundamental and integral part of the identity and dignity of a woman who chooses to start a family and bear a child.”
It stated, “To make sure that the women of the society are made to feel safe and secure, she should be able to make decisions in her personal and professional life, without having an implication or bearing of one on the other. The work environment should be conducive enough for a woman to facilitate unimpaired decision making regarding personal and professional life and to ensure that a woman who chooses to have both, a career and motherhood, is not forced to make an ‘either-or’ decision.”
The petitioner, a contractual employee of the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA), moved the high court after her request for maternity benefits was denied.
DSLSA argued that she was ineligible since she was an empanelled advocate, not an employee entitled to such benefits. The court opined that the petitioner’s request was not extraordinary or unreasonable. To obstruct a woman’s maternity rights, absent proper legal procedure or intervention, violates constitutional fundamental rights and the bedrock principles of social justice.
The court remarked that even in contemporary times, if a woman is coerced to choose between family life and career growth, society would fall short in providing her the means to thrive.
The court stated, “The liberty to carry a child is a fundamental right that the Constitution of the Country grants its citizens under Article 21. Further, the choice not to carry a child is an extension of this fundamental right.”
Currently, the court stated, the respondent should have exceeded the benefits and reliefs under the Maternity Benefit Act to the petitioner, holding on to the nature of employment that can’t decide whether a woman employee would be entitled to maternity benefits under the law.
The court stated, “The 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.”
Furthermore, it stated, “The social welfare legislation of the Maternity Benefit Act certainly does not discriminate on the basis of the nature of employment of the beneficiaries. It is also certain that the mere creation of the welfare legislation is not enough. A duty is cast upon the State and all those who are subjects of the Act to uphold the integrity, the objective and the provisions of the legislation in its letter and spirit.”
