Karnataka High Court has issued an interim stay on the state’s mandatory one-day paid menstrual leave for women in private industrial establishments, following a challenge by the Bangalore Hotels Association citing legal and operational concerns.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday issued an interim stay on the state government’s recent notification mandating one day of paid menstrual leave per month for women employees in private industrial establishments. The order comes after the Bangalore Hotels Association (BHA) challenged the policy, arguing that the state exceeded its legal authority.
The Court will now hear the matter again tomorrow, following a request by Karnataka’s Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty to reconsider the temporary stay order.
The interim stay was granted by Justice Jyoti M, who directed the Karnataka government to file a detailed response to the petition. The matter has been scheduled for rehearing after the winter vacation.
Background
The Karnataka Labour Department, through Government Order No. LD 466 LET 2023, dated November 12, 2025, directed all establishments covered under various labour statutes to grant paid menstrual leave. The policy applied across sectors governed by:
- Factories Act, 1948
- Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961
- Plantations Labour Act, 1951
- Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966
- Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961
The notification required companies to provide one paid day of menstrual leave monthly to women aged 18–52, including permanent, contract, and outsourced workers.
Bangalore Hotels Association Challenges the Notification
The BHA argued that the mandatory menstrual leave policy lacks legal support within current labour laws and imposes a financial and operational burden on private employers. The association stated that for such a leave category to be introduced, the government would first need to amend relevant labour laws through the legislative process.
“If at all the Government wanted to introduce menstrual leave in industrial establishments, it was legally required to amend the above statutes through legislative process,”
the petition stated.
The association further questioned the government’s decision not to implement a similar policy for its own employees, calling the directive discriminatory and arbitrary.
The petition also argued that compulsory menstrual leave could negatively affect women’s employability and reinforce gender-based stereotypes.
“It may represent a form of benevolent sexism… leading to gender bias resulting in workplace discrimination,”
the plea contended.
According to the association, internal HR policies, not executive orders, should determine special leave frameworks.
The petition was filed through Advocate B.K. Prashanth.
With the High Court granting an interim stay:
- The menstrual leave mandate cannot be enforced until further orders.
- Private establishments are temporarily relieved from compliance.
- Final judgment will follow after the government submits its response post-vacation.
Case Title:
The Bangalore Hotels Association vs Government of Karnataka
