Bombay High Court Sets Aside Denial of Maternity Benefits to Contract Doctor
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Friday overturned a 2024 decision by the civic-run KEM Hospital to refuse maternity benefits to a doctor employed on a contractual basis. The court directed the state government to acknowledge the increasing number of women in diverse workforces and ensure a more reasonable and sensitive approach in such matters moving forward.
Court Orders Payment Within Six Weeks
The bench, comprising Justices Riyaz Chagla and Advait Sethna, mandated that the doctor be granted her maternity benefit dues within six weeks. The court emphasized that the Maternity Benefit Act makes no distinction between women employees based on their appointment type, whether contractual or permanent.
Fundamentally, the Act clearly makes no distinction between a woman employee who is appointed under a contract or agreement and those otherwise employed, stated the bench, rejecting the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's (BMC) argument that the doctor's role was merely a stop-gap arrangement pending regular selection.
Background of the Case
The anaesthesiologist, engaged as an assistant professor on contract, petitioned the High Court last year to challenge the hospital's October 2024 refusal to grant her maternity benefits. The hospital had cited unavailability of such benefits for contractual employees as grounds for denial.
According to her counsel, Subit Chakrabarti, the doctor was appointed in January 2022, with her contract extended until June 2025. She complied with all necessary service requirements and provided evidence of childbirth. An agreement in 2024 entitled her to holidays and vacations as per rules applicable to permanent employees, yet her maternity leave request in October 2024 was denied. She gave birth the following month.
Legal and Social Implications
The High Court noted that the doctor fulfilled the criteria under Section 5(2) of the Maternity Benefit Act, having worked 80 days in the 12 months preceding her expected delivery date of November 15, 2024. The court found merit in the claim that BMC's stance interfered with the petitioner's fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In this scenario, it is important to ensure that a woman striving for self-sufficiency and economic independence does not have to compromise on her role as a caregiver to her child, the court remarked, highlighting the broader social context of rising female workforce participation.
The court also criticized the state for its insensitivity, pointing out that the hospital had initially agreed in principle to process the payment. She ought not to be made to seek orders from this court, especially since the hospital in principle agreed to process payment of her maternity benefits, the bench added after hearing arguments from both sides.
Broader Impact on Contractual Employment
This ruling underscores the legal protections afforded to contractual workers under Indian labor laws, particularly in healthcare sectors. It serves as a reminder to employers, including government bodies, to adhere to statutory mandates without discrimination based on employment status.
The decision is expected to influence future cases involving maternity benefits and contractual employment, promoting gender equality and support for working mothers across various industries.
