Calcutta High Court Rules Against Differentiation in Maternity Benefits Between Regular and Contractual Employees

"Calcutta High Court Directs RBI to Compensate Contractual Employee for Denied Maternity Leave"

The Calcutta High Court has issued a directive to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to compensate an executive intern, emphasizing that no differentiation is permissible between regular and contractual employees regarding a woman's right to childbirth and maternity leave.

The petitioner, employed on a contractual basis as an executive intern with RBI for three years starting from August 16, 2011, filed a petition questioning the RBI's failure to grant maternity leave with pay for 180 days.

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, in a judgment delivered on Monday, emphasized that on the matter of a woman's right to childbirth and maternity leave, no distinction should be made between regular and contractual employees of the bank.

The court directed the RBI to compensate the petitioner with leave along with pay for the period during which maternity leave was denied. This decision was based on the court's observation that the denial of maternity benefits to the petitioner was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The court highlighted that denial of maternity leave constituted an offense under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, which ensures maternity benefits to all women employees. Justice Basu Chowdhury emphasized that denying maternity benefits could endanger the health of both the mother and the fetus.

The petitioner had applied for maternity leave for six months starting from December 3, 2012, as advised by her doctor due to medical reasons. However, she was informed by the RBI that she was not entitled to maternity leave as per the terms of her contract, and her absence from duty would be treated as leave without compensation.

Malini Chakraborty, advocate for the petitioner, argued that the employment contract cannot override the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, which is a beneficial legislation.

The advocate representing the RBI countered by referring to the employment contract dated June 13, 2011, which only provided for medical benefits and did not include provisions for maternity benefits. He argued that the petitioner had accepted these terms and could not deviate from them later on.

The court's ruling underscores the importance of upholding women's rights to maternity benefits, regardless of their employment status, and highlights the necessity of complying with statutory provisions designed to protect the interests of women in the workplace.

A view of the Calcutta High Court. File | Photo Credit: The Hindu