Maternity Benefits Are Available To Contractual Employees As Well Rules Kerala High Court

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

Kerala High Court reaffirmed that even contractual employees are entitled to Maternity Benefits. Laws in India allows every working pregnant woman certain benefits such as paid leave of absence from work for a fixed period of time to look after new-born babies before and after their birth.

Facts Of The Case And Arguments Advanced

In this case the Petitioner has been working as an Assistant Professor of Medical Microbiology on contractual basis in School of Health Sciences, Calicut University for almost a decade. Petitioner’s request for maternity benefits was rejected by the university because according to the employment agreement of the Petitioner, she was not entitled to any such benefits. Upset by this decision, Petitioner filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court seeking an order directing the Calicut University to grant her maternity benefits. The main issue before the High Court was 

Whether a contractual employee is entitled to maternity benefits or not?

Learned Counsel representing the University argued that according to the clause 11 of the employment agreement of the Petitioner she could at best claim 15 days casual leave during a period of one year and abstain from duty on account of medical conditions of maternity.

Verdict Of The Case

Learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court, Justice A Muhamed Mushtaq rejected the argument of counsel of the Calicut University and held that even contractual employees are entitled to maternity benefits. Learned Single Judge relied on two judgments to come to this conclusion, namely, Mini v. Life insurance Corporation of India and Rakhi P.V& Ors. v. State of Kerala.

In Rakhi’s case, it was clearly held “that a woman employee cannot be denied maternity benefits merely because her status is of a contractual employee. Therefore, the University is bound to grant such benefits notwithstanding anything contained in the agreement of contract.”

Furthermore, Judge also said that

The maternity benefit is not merely a statutory benefit or a benefit flowing out of an agreement. This court consistently held that it is attached with the dignity of a woman. A woman cannot be compelled to choose between motherhood and employment “ On the basis of judgments and the view cited above Court directed the University to pay to the petitioner maternity benefits as it would have in case of other employees of the University within two months.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -