‘Childbirth lifelong sacrifice’: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court slams bank for denying maternity benefits

“The appellant-Bank, a banking behemoth whose vast footprint extends across the length and breadth of India, has regrettably chosen to flex its institutional muscles against its female employees. Rather than accommodating and honouring their motherhood, the bank has subjected them to hostile discrimination vis-à-vis their peers. Such an overbearing approach by an institution of this stature is entirely impermissible and cannot be countenanced in law,” the May 20 order noted.

Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal heard a matter over maternity benefits.

“The profound pain of childbirth is merely the opening chapter in a lifelong narrative of sacrifice. To deny maternity benefits is not only to ignore this profound ‘double burden,’ but to fail entirely in our constitutional obligation to ensure a level playing field for those who literally labour to bring the next generation of citizens into existence,” the bench added.

Two-year contract

• The respondents were appointed on a contractual basis for two years, after which they were eligible for regularisation, subject to a performance assessment.
• Although the contract did not provide maternity leave, the appellants, upon the respondents’ request, granted them extraordinary leave instead of maternity leave.
• The aforementioned leave was granted on the condition that the contract would be extended by the corresponding period of leave.
• The respondents initially accepted the conditions and availed the leave without any objection; however, later they challenged their regularisation order, which had excluded the maternity leave period from the initial two-year contractual service. 

‘Maternity benefits for female employees’

The court opined that if maternity benefits rules are unclear or silent, they must be resolved through a lens of beneficial construction towards the employee; and any contrary interpretation would not only defeat the spirit of it but would entirely counter the mandate of gender justice embodied in Article 15 of the Constitution of India. 

Stressing the sole objective of maternity benefits interpretation, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said that it must be done to advance the cause of the female employees, not to orchestrate their disentitlement. 

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the ‘doctrine of acquiescence’ operates as an equitable shield; it cannot be weaponised to defeat fundamental rights, and rejected the appellants’ submissions that respondents could not challenge the regulation. 

Maternity Act enacted to give teeth to constitutional visions

• The court noted that Article 15 of the Constitution of India forbids discrimination on the ground of sex, whereas Article 15(3) carves out a vital enabling provision, authorising the state to enact special measures for women and children. 
• Article 42 directs the state to ensure just and humane working conditions alongside maternity relief, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court added.
• Article 39 directs the state to ensure that men and women have equal livelihood opportunities and equal pay, and to protect workers and children from exploitation and forced unsuitable employment.
• To give teeth to this constitutional vision and preserve the dignity of motherhood, Parliament enacted the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, the court said.
• The Maternity Act was to ensure that working women are neither forced to labour during advanced pregnancy nor deprived of their livelihoods, thereby securing full remuneration and health security for both mother and child.

‘Two-year strict service, flawed’

The court held that the appellants’ strict continuous two-year service requirement was flawed, as once the respondents had proved their suitability, they should not have suffered disadvantage on the grounds of motherhood, and did not possess any bargaining power, as they would have been terminated.

Bank’s contentions

• Senior Advocate Raman Sharma and Advocate Kartikay Sharma for the appellants submitted that, having accepted the conditions stipulated in the leave sanctions, the respondents were legally stopped from raising a grievance against the same.
• The court completely failed to consider this crucial aspect of the matter, and the judgment deserved to be set aside, the counsel said.
• It was argued that during the time respondents went on leave, the continuous two-year service was not rendered, and the appellant acted strictly in accordance with the terms.
• It was contended that the court had relied upon various judgments that upheld the rights of women to avail of maternity leave; however, in the present case, maternity leave was never denied to the respondents.
• The appellant bank had frozen certain pay components for employees on December 31, 2020, under a circular no 725; the benefit was not extended to those regularised after the date, the advocates said.
• It was argued that the respondents were regularised later in 2021, so they were not eligible for the aforementioned benefits.
• They contended that the court had erred in granting them retrospective benefits and treating maternity leave as continuous service for that purpose.