A woman was employed in a factory under continuous service for four months. Without any significant cause or due process, her services were terminated by the employer. This termination occurred during a time when the woman was in the early stages of pregnancy.
The woman later filed a complaint seeking maternity benefits, arguing that she had worked long enough to qualify for such leave under the law. The employer, however, contended that since she had not completed six months of service, she was not eligible for any benefits, including leave or pay.
This case centers around a conflict between employer conduct and statutory protections given to working women in India.
Issues of the Case
- Does a woman who has completed four months of continuous service in a factory have a legal right to maternity leave or benefits upon termination?
- Can an employer legally terminate a woman employee during pregnancy without violating labour laws?
- What legal remedies can a woman pursue if her employer terminates her before she completes six months of service, especially when she is pregnant or eligible for maternity leave?
These questions strike at the heart of workers’ rights and the protective legal framework intended to support working women in India.
Principles and Related Case Laws
The key legislative provisions that apply here include:
- The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
If a woman works at least 80 days in the 12 months before her expected delivery, Section 5(2) of the Act mandates that the employer grant her maternity benefits. Even though the woman worked only for four months, it easily covers the required 80 days, assuming regular attendance. - The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
An employer who terminates a woman worker without cause or due process, especially during pregnancy, commits an illegal act and engages in an unfair labour practice under this Act. - Case Reference: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), (2000) 3 SCC 224
The Supreme Court of India held that employers must provide maternity benefits even to temporary or muster-roll female workers. The judgment emphasized that denying such benefits goes against the spirit of equality enshrined in the Constitution.
This judgment plays a key role in interpreting the rights of female workers beyond the technicalities of contract length or job permanency.
Judgement
In similar cases, courts have consistently held that once a woman worker has met the eligibility criteria under the Maternity Benefit Act, she cannot be denied her lawful entitlements merely because of the short duration of employment.
Because the worker has completed four months of service, covering at least 80 working days, the employer must grant her maternity leave and the corresponding benefits. Moreover, the termination itself, if connected to her pregnancy, violates Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, which strictly prohibits dismissal during pregnancy.
The court could declare her termination null and void, order the employer to pay back wages, grant her maternity leave, and award compensation for the illegal dismissal.
