The Madras High Court ruled that contractual employees are entitled to maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The court emphasized that the provisions of the Act prevail over any contractual conditions, stating, “Maternity benefits cannot be denied based on contract”, ensuring fairness for women in all employment types.
Chennai: The Madras High Court has delivered a significant ruling, declaring that contractual employees are also entitled to maternity leave and the full range of benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. In a landmark decision, the court clarified that the provisions of this Act override any contractual conditions that may seek to deny or limit maternity benefits.
A Bench of Chief Justice KR Sriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy made this pivotal observation, stating,
“The provisions of the 1961 Act will prevail over contractual conditions denying or offering less favourable maternity benefits.”
This ruling was issued while the court was addressing a writ petition filed in 2018 by the MRB Nurses Empowerment Association, an association representing nurses employed by the State government under the National Rural Health Mission (NHRM).
The Petition and the Court’s Response
The petitioner association had approached the court with the plea to direct the State government to extend 270 days of paid maternity leave to contractual nurses, as mandated by the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The association argued that contractual nurses under the NHRM scheme were being unfairly deprived of the benefits that should be provided to all working women, irrespective of their employment status.
Read Also: ‘Government Considering Draft of UCC, Parliament Will Take a Call’: Supreme Court
However, the State government countered this by claiming that since the nurses were employed on a contractual basis, they were not eligible for the same leave and benefits granted to regular government employees. The State contended that contractual nurses were entitled only to limited leave, specifically one day of casual leave per month and a day off, and thus did not qualify for maternity leave under the contract terms.
Court Upholds the Maternity Benefit Act
The Madras High Court firmly rejected the State’s argument, citing Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which ensures that the provisions of the Act prevail over any inconsistent laws. The court emphasized that this section was intended to ensure that the Act takes precedence over any other laws or agreements that may be in conflict with its provisions.
The court made it clear that denying maternity benefits based on contractual conditions was unlawful, stating,
“Therefore, by virtue of Section 27, the provisions of the 1961 Act will prevail over contractual conditions denying or offering less favourable maternity benefits. Consequently, the reliance by the respondents on condition 6 of the Appointment and Posting Order to deny maternity benefits is untenable.”
In its ruling, the court directed the State government to consider all pending and new applications submitted by NHRM nurses for maternity benefits in accordance with the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. This decision sets an important precedent for the rights of contractual employees, particularly women, ensuring they are not denied essential benefits simply because of the terms of their employment.
Legal Representation and Proceedings
The case saw Advocate M Padmavathy representing the petitioner association, who argued in favor of extending full maternity benefits to contractual nurses under the NHRM scheme. On the side of the State, Advocate General PS Raman, State Government Pleader A Edwin Prabakar, and Government Advocate TK Saravanan defended the government’s position.
This ruling has been hailed as a significant step forward in ensuring equal rights for women in the workforce, particularly those in contractual employment who have long been denied benefits that regular employees receive.
Conclusion: A Victory for Contractual Workers
The decision by the Madras High Court is a landmark victory for contractual employees across various sectors, reinforcing the principle that essential benefits like maternity leave cannot be restricted based on the nature of employment. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, a key legislation aimed at safeguarding the rights of working women, has once again been upheld as the ultimate authority, ensuring that no woman is denied her rightful benefits.
This case not only addresses the issue of maternity benefits for contractual nurses but also sets a broader precedent that could have far-reaching implications for other sectors where employees on contractual terms are denied their lawful entitlements. The court’s message is clear: “Maternity benefits cannot be denied based on contract,” ensuring fairness and equality for all working women.
Read the Judgement here:
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
