In a recent case, the Bombay High Court ruled that the birth of a first child before joining the service is not relevant for considering maternity leave eligibility after joining the service. The case involved the Airports Authority of India Workers Union and the Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour. The court held that the objective of the Maternity Benefit Regulation under the AAI Regulations is not to curb population but to provide maternity benefits on two occasions during the service period.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Kanakavali Raja Armugam, got married in July 1997 and gave birth to one child from her first marriage. After her husband passed away in 2000, she was given compassionate appointment with the Airports Authority of India (AAI) as a junior attendant in 2004. She remarried in 2008 and gave birth to two more children. When she applied for maternity leave after delivering her third child in 2012, her application was rejected by the AAI on the grounds that she already had more than two surviving children. The petitioner argued that the 2003 Regulations should not be applicable to her since she only gave birth to two children after being appointed and her first child was born before her appointment.
Arguments Presented
The petitioner contended that the 2003 Regulations should not apply to her because she only gave birth to two children after joining the service. She argued that the objective of maternity leave is to provide benefits to female employees and that the AAI was not justified in rejecting her application for maternity leave.
On the other hand, the respondent argued that according to the 2003 Regulations, the number of children born to the petitioner should be considered, and since she already had two surviving children at the time of giving birth to her third child, she was not eligible for maternity leave.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The court observed that the objective of the maternity leave provision under the 2003 Regulations is to enable the employee to nurse her child, regain her energy, and regain her level of efficiency. The court noted that the regulation allows female employees with less than two surviving children to be granted maternity leave twice during their service period. The court interpreted the condition of “two surviving children” in the context of the regulation and concluded that it means the female employee needs to give birth to the two surviving children only during the service period. The court emphasized that the objective of the regulation is to provide maternity benefits, not to curb population. Therefore, the birth of the first child before joining the service is not relevant for considering the claim of maternity leave after joining the service.
The court also referred to Article 42 of the Constitution of India, which provides for securing just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. The court noted that the right to reproduction has been recognized as an important facet of a person’s right to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity under Article 21. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of B. Shah Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, which held that legislation for maternity leave is intended to achieve the object of doing social justice to women workers.
Based on these observations, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to maternity leave as she sought to avail it only once after joining the service. The court emphasized that the objective of the Maternity Benefit Regulation is to provide benefits on two occasions during the service period, and the birth of the first child before joining the service should not be considered for maternity leave eligibility.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court ruled that the birth of a first child before joining the service is not relevant for considering maternity leave eligibility after joining the service. The court held that the objective of the Maternity Benefit Regulation is to provide benefits on two occasions during the service period, and the condition of “two surviving children” should be interpreted in the context of the regulation. The court emphasized that the objective is to provide maternity benefits, not to curb population.
