The Calcutta High Court mandates equal maternity benefits for both regular and contractual employees, directing the RBI to compensate a contractual executive intern. Justice Basu Chowdhury deems differentiation a violation of the Constitution and the Maternity Benefits Act.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: On 28th February, the Calcutta High Court has affirmed that the right to maternity leave applies equally to all women employees, irrespective of their contractual status, emphasizing that
“no differentiation is permissible between regular and contractual employees on the question of a woman’s right to childbirth and maternity leave.”
This decision came after a contractual executive intern at the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) was denied paid maternity leave.
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, presiding over the case, highlighted the discriminatory nature of the RBI’s actions, stating-
“non-extension of such benefits to the petitioner, in my view, constitutes discriminatory act as the same seeks to create a class within a class which is not permissible.”
ALSO READ:RBI Governor: “Sufficient time given” | On Action Against Paytm Payments Bank
The court’s stance reinforces the principle that employment terms should not override the fundamental rights granted under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, which ensures that
“every woman would be entitled to, and her employer would be liable for, the payment of maternity benefits.”
The petitioner’s struggle began when her request for maternity leave was initially met with silence and later outright denial, based on her contractual employment terms. However, the court observed that denying her the maternity benefits not only violated her rights but also posed a risk to her and her unborn child’s health, stating-
“If the same is permitted, the object of social justice would stand deviated.”
The ruling has been hailed as a significant step towards ensuring equal rights for all women in the workforce, challenging the notion that contractual terms can undermine statutory rights. Malini Chakraborty, the advocate for the petitioner, argued effectively that the Maternity Benefits Act, being a central Act, holds precedence over any employment contract, a point that the court upheld against the opposing arguments presented by the RBI’s legal representation.
ALSO READ:Supreme Court of India | Indian Startups Challenge Google Play’s Billing Policy
