A recent ruling by the Delhi High Court clarified that legal aid lawyers indeed entitled to maternity benefits. The court upheld that the Maternity Benefit Act applies without discrimination based on the type of employment, rejecting an earlier single-judge decision.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court ruled that an advocate listed with a legal services authority does not qualify as an ’employee’ and thus is not eligible for maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Justices V Kameswar Rao and Saurabh Banerjee emphasized the distinction between such advocates and employees appointed according to recruitment rules.
The Court stated in its ruling,
“We find that the learned Single Judge made a mistake by granting the benefits of the Maternity Benefits Act of 1961 to the respondent, especially considering the nature of her appointment,”
The Court overturned a single-judge‘s decision directing the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to provide medical, financial, and other benefits to its empanelled legal aid counsel, Annwesha Deb.
In an order issued on August 24, 2023, the single-judge determined that the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act of 2017 does not discriminate based on the type of employment.
The single-judge argued that there, no language in the Maternity Benefit Act indicating that a pregnant woman working in any capacity should be denied maternity benefits.
DSLSA contested this ruling before the Division Bench.
Today, the Bench approved the appeal and acknowledged that Deb’s association with the DSLSA in a professional capacity, rather than as a permanent employee.
The statement read,
“As per her argument, if an Advocate doesn’t appear in court on a specific day, they don’t receive fees for that day. This implies that the respondent’s engagement, like that of any other Legal Service Advocate (LSA), lacks regularity and fixed terms. Consequently, the leaves afforded to an employee are not applicable to an LSA. As a result, the engagement of LSAs on a day-to-day basis is akin to a professional engagement,”
The Division Bench concluded that if the single-judge’s understanding of the terms ’employment’ and ‘wages’ in the Maternity Benefit Act is upheld, it would imply that any organization engaging professionals such as advocates would be obligated to provide maternity benefits to all such professionally engaged individuals.
The Court stated,
“The interpretation made by the Learned Single Judge is legally incorrect and could lead to significant consequences,”
The Court further noted that since Deb knowingly agreed to the terms and conditions outlined in the notice for her empanelment, she cannot now request maternity benefits, as they were never offered to her previously.
The statement read,
“It is indisputable that the respondent is obligated by the explicit Terms and Conditions stated in the Notice inviting applications issued by the Authority [DSLSA], as well as the subsequent office order dated May 09, 2016, also issued by the same Authority. Therefore, by voluntarily choosing to accept these conditions, she is bound by them. Since this decision was made without any coercion or pressure, the respondent is precluded from seeking maternity benefits under the Act of 1961, particularly since they were never offered to her previously,”
Thus, the Court granted the appeal and overturned the ruling of the single-judge.
Representing the Delhi State Legal Services Authority , Advocates Dr. Amit George, Arkaneil Bhaumik, Rayadurgam Bharat, Adhishwar Suri, Piyo Harold Saimon, Rishabh Dheer, and Shashwat Kabi.
Advocate Dr. Charu Wali Khanna and Hemant Kumar Yadav appeared on behalf of Annwesha Deb.
Read Judgement:[Delhi State Legal Services Authority v Annwesha Deb]
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES