Himachal High court protects maternity rights of school teacher

Himachal High court protects maternity rights of school teacher

Shimla, Dec 29

In an issue concerning the moral duty of an employer and matters of maternity benefits denied to a terminated teacher by the renowned Loreto Convent Tara Hall School management in Himachal Pradesh, the High Court held that an educational institution could not deprive any woman of the right to give birth and take care of her baby. The court emphasized that it is not only important but essential for women to conceive a child for the sake of the human race.

In a landmark verdict, a single judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, upheld the impugned order passed by the labor commissioner, which had been challenged by the petitioner, Secretary of Loreto Convent Tara Hall School Shimla.

The petitioner not only terminated the probationary service of Assistant Teacher Sharu Gupta but also denied her the benefit of maternity leave, despite the fact that the respondent had already availed leaves for this purpose from the school.

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and respondents, the court dismissed the petition filed by the Secretary and Managing Committee of Loreto Convent Tara Hall School, challenging the order passed by the court of the labor inspector and the appellate labor commission.

Granting relief, the High Court stated that on Earth, conceiving, giving birth, and taking care of a child are not only fundamental rights of women but also a pious role to be performed by them for the existence of society.

The court, in a 14-page judgment, emphasized the arduous nature of this duty and stated that the respondent must be provided with the facilities to which she is entitled.

Quoting the verdict of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll), the High Court emphasized that becoming a mother is the most natural phenomenon in the life of a woman. For this purpose, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, has been enacted to provide security and benefits to working women.

The court pointed out that a working woman, due to the biological duty assigned to her by nature, inevitably faces physical difficulties in conceiving, carrying a baby in the womb, and rearing the child after birth. The Maternity Benefit Act has been enacted to provide all facilities to working women in a dignified manner so that they may overcome the state of motherhood honorably, peacefully, and undeterred by the fear of being victimized for forced absence during the pre or post-natal period.

The court referred to Article 42 of the Constitution of India, which categorically directs that the state should make provisions for securing just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. India is a signatory to various international covenants and treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which declares that human rights are supreme and ought to be preserved at all costs.

The court expressed the opinion that the right to become a mother is one of the most important human rights and must be protected at all costs. Therefore, the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act must be enforced strictly wherever applicable.

The court also emphasized that the relationship between an employer and an employee requires mutual trust, particularly in an educational institution where a congenial atmosphere for teaching and learning is required.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur stated that if the petitioners do not intend to accept the joining of the respondent, as directed by the authorities below, then they shall, in addition to the maternity benefits already granted, pay compensation to the respondent amounting to Rs. 15.00 lakhs in lieu of her reinstatement. This is because any intent to thwart the grant of maternity benefits should be dealt with seriously to ensure the implementation of the Act in letter and spirit.

The court found no illegality, irregularity, or judicial impropriety to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the authorities under the Maternity Benefits Act by invoking discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Background of the case:

The respondent teacher delivered a baby at Tenzin Hospital, Shimla, in April 2019, and she filed a complaint before the labour court against the school.

The labour court set aside the termination order with consequential payment of Rs. 44,896 after adjusting one month’s salary, inclusive of the salary for winter vacation, from the petitioner’s management.

The labor inspector also ordered the management to pay maternity benefits under the Act amounting to Rs. 1,97,106 based on the respondent’s salary and also to pay Rs. 3500 as a medical bonus, as admissible under Section 8 of the Act.