LI Network
Published on: 25 August 2023 at 11:04 IST
The Delhi High Court has underscored that the Maternity Benefit Act of 2017 does not discriminate based on the nature of employment, following its recent order instructing the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to provide medical, financial, and other essential benefits to its own empanelled legal aid advocate (petitioner) [Annwesha Deb v. Delhi State Legal Services Authority].
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh expressed irony in the fact that the petitioner, appointed to the Juvenile Justice Board to safeguard justice’s interests and welfare, struggled to attain benefits essential for her own child’s well-being.
The case revolved around whether the petitioner, serving on a contractual basis, was eligible for maternity benefits, and if DSLSA was obliged to grant her maternal benefits on par with regular employees.
The Court determined that the language of the Maternity Benefit Act didn’t imply that a working pregnant woman was disqualified from receiving maternity benefits based on her employment’s nature.
The Court further highlighted that despite advancements in medical science, the innate care for a newborn cannot be negated. It emphasized that nature doesn’t discriminate in accordance with a woman’s employment type when she becomes a mother.
The experience of childbirth and the process a woman undergoes must not be hindered by external factors affecting her well-being and causing distress.
The Court criticized a society that forces women to choose between family and career progression, deeming it a failure.
Justice Singh also noted that though termed “benefits,” the reliefs provided by the Maternity Benefit Act should ideally be a pregnant woman’s right. The Court called for a shift in perspective and a more adaptable approach in granting maternity benefits.
Consequently, the Court concluded that DSLSA should have extended maternity benefits to the petitioner, stating that a woman’s employment nature should not dictate her eligibility for maternity benefits.
The case involved a legal aid advocate associated with DSLSA since May 2016. In April 2017, she became pregnant, applied for seven months of maternity leave in October 2017, which DSLSA denied. She contested the denial in the High Court.
DSLSA argued that she wasn’t entitled to benefits as she was an empanelled advocate, not an employee eligible for such privileges.
However, the Court rejected DSLSA’s stance that their relationship was client-advocate rather than employer-employee. The Court determined that the petitioner’s fixed wage rendered her wages under the Maternity Benefit Act’s definition.
Thus, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner’s entitlement to 26 weeks of maternity benefits and mandated DSLSA to comply within three months.
The Court clarified that the ruling pertained to the specific case’s circumstances and shouldn’t be treated as a precedent.
