The instant petition challenges the  impugned order passed by the Inspecting Officer/Inspector of the Joint Labour Commissioner under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The facts of the case were: the respondent joined the petitioner Asia Pacific Institute of Management as an Assistant Professor in 2011 and she was promoted to Associate Professor in 2015. In 2018, the petitioner discontinued the service and this led the respondent to file a complaint before the Labour Commissioner under the Act. 

The petitioner submitted that the petitioner was unaware of the fact that the respondent was seven months pregnant and this intimation was made only after the submission of the relieving letter in 2018. It was also submitted that the awarding of maternity benefit for six months under the Act was untenable. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent had emailed the petitioner the fact of her advanced stage of pregnancy and  further submitted that the copies of the emails were placed before the Labour Commissioner. Mr. Satyakam, ld. ASC appearing for the Labour Commissioner, He filed a copy of an email he obtained from the Office of the Labour Commissioner, which, in his opinion, fully falsifies the Petitioner's argument.  He further contended that as per Section 6(6) of the Act, even if it is presumed that the notice of claim for maternity leave was not given, Respondent No.2 cannot be deprived of the benefits under the Act. 

Join Now! India's Largest directory of lawyers and legal professionals

The court on perusal of reading held that the fact that she was seven months’ pregnant on the date when the relieving letter was served upon her, clearly shows that the intention behind the said letter was to somehow deprive Respondent of her maternity benefits. The court was of the view that as per Sec 27 of the Act Benefits under the Act must be extended without exception, regardless of contractual terms. Only if the circumstances of the contract of work are more favourable to the woman can the same be implemented. Thus, no conditions, which are unfavourable or disadvantageous to a woman, in a contract of employment can override or supersede the benefits conferred upon pregnant women under the Act.

The court also brought to the notice that according to Sec 6(6) of the Act,  the failure to give notice would not deprive the woman from such benefits. The question which is to be considered whether a notice is mandatory was considered in the case Sunita Baliyan v. Director Social Welfare Department GNCTD, 2007 (99) DDRJ 551  where the single judge  held that immediate notice to the employer of pregnancy of an employee is not required, however, notice would be required to be served within a reasonable period and in any event as soon as possible after delivery.

The court held that the respondent who was pregnant on the date she was served with the relieving letter, could not have been terminated and discontinuation of her services was illegal, unlawful as well contrary to provisions of this Act. The court opined “The Act is a beneficial legislation for the purpose of safeguarding the rights of pregnant women. The provisions of the Act have to be given effect to, in letter and spirit. Technical issues would not come in the way of the Court or the authority concerned, in recognizing the said benefits. An organization is expected to be empathetic to the cause of a pregnant woman rather than making bald allegations against her, especially when the Petitioner came to know that Respondent No.2 was at an advanced stage of pregnancy”. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.