Delhi High Court expects firms to empathize with pregnant women

Delhi High Court expects firms to empathize with pregnant women

Maternity Benefit Act is valuable legislation to safeguard women's rights

The Delhi High Court has held that the Maternity Benefit Act (MBA) is a beneficial legislation for the purpose of safeguarding the rights of pregnant women. The organizations are expected to be empathetic to the cause of a pregnant woman rather than making allegations against them.

Justice Pratibha M Singh observed, "The provisions of the Act have to be given effect in letter and spirit. Technical issues would not come in the way of the court or the authority concerned in recognizing the benefits."

The court was dealing with a plea filed by the Asia Pacific Institute of Management (APIM) challenging the 2020 order passed by the Labour Commissioner under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

The proceedings emerged after a woman joined the institute as an assistant professor in 2011. She was promoted to associate professor in 2015. In August 2018, she informed the institute (via an email) of being in an advanced stage of pregnancy and sought maternity leave from November onwards.

But the institute served her with a relieving letter in October, leading to her filing a complaint before the Labour Commissioner under MBA. Thereafter, the institute petitioned that it was not aware that the woman was pregnant and that it received the intimation (of her seven month's pregnancy) after she was handed over the relieving letter.

The institute further submitted that, therefore, awarding maternity benefit to the woman for six months under the Act was untenable.

The court observed that the institute had tried to deprive the woman of her maternity benefits. Justice Singh said it was unfathomable how an academic establishment could claim to be completely ignorant of her pregnancy.

Ruling the woman's termination, "illegal, unlawful and contrary to the provisions of the Act," Justice Singh noted that the amount awarded to her (since 2018) was yet to be paid. She directed the institute to pay her an additional amount of Rs.50,000 as litigation expenses.