_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name - Bharti Gupta v/s Rail India Technical & Economical Services Ltd. (RITES) & Others
Citation - (84) DRJ 53
Parties Involved -
Petitioner - Bharti Gupta
Respondent - Rail India Technical and Economical Services Limited
Relevant Act ad Sections -
Bench - S. R. Bhat
Facts of the Case
On 8.10.1997, the petitioner, a qualified Architect, was initially appointed by the respondents and was promised a six-month contractual position. After the six-month time had expired, her contract was renewed, and she continued to work for RITES (respondent). She is contesting the impugned order dated December 13, 2000, which indicates that the contractual relationship ended on October 16, 2000, and that she was no longer on the organization's rolls after that date. The petitioner's request for maternity leave benefits to be released was likewise denied.
Issue of the Case
Will the petitioner get any benefits under The Maternity Act, 1961?
Arguments of the Petitioner
The petitioner claims that her services were continued and that she worked continuously until she requested maternity leave on October 15, 2000. According to that application, the RITES was notified that the petitioner will be on maternity leave beginning November 11, 2000, and continuing until further notice. The petitioner also claims that RITES did not respond to this notification and that the impugned order referred to the petitioner's last letter, dated 23.5.2000, which stated that her engagement would cease after six months. On 10.11.2001 and 24.12.2001, the petitioner made submissions, among other things, for the release of maternity benefits. The RITES, on the other hand, declined the request. As a result, she approached the court.
Arguments of the Respondent
The accusation is disputed by the respondents ib their counter-affidavit. They claimed that the petitioner was hired on a strictly contractual basis and that her contract expired on October 16, 2000.
They also denied receiving a letter dated 15.10.2000, despite the fact that the letter was allegedly delivered to the RITES on 17.11.2000.
The respondents have also placed copies of letters requesting medical leave dated 21.6.2000, 17.7.2000, 4.8.2000, and 19.9.2000 on file.
Judgment of the Case
Sections 4 and 5 of the Maternity Act require every employer to provide maternity benefits, such as paid leave and a maternity bonus, as defined by the Act. Section 12 emphasizes the liability's autonomous and inflexible nature by stating that no one can be fired due to pregnancy. It's an anti-discrimination clause.
The Constitution's Articles 14 and 15 ensure equality, while Article 15(3) allows the state to create particular provisions for women. The Maternity Act contains measures that promote two goals: affirmative action (Sections 4, 5, and 27) and non-discrimination (Sections 4, 5, and 27). (Sections 12, 21, and 23). Their universality cannot be denied.
RITES is a business that is subject to the Act. It is also a state instrumentality (as defined by Article 12 of the Indian Constitution) and so subject to Part III of the Constitution. The petitioner was employed until November 11, 2000, according to the record. The most recent ruling, which extended the appointment contract by six months, was granted in May of 2000; the previous time had ended on 17.4.2000. As a result, the era began on 17.4.2000 and ended on 16.10.2000. Given these stated facts, as well as the fact that the petitioner was placed on leave on November 11, 2000, and then gave birth on December 5, 2000, the RITES cannot avoid its obligation to provide benefits under The Maternity Benefits Act, 1961.
The respondent RITES has been given six weeks from today to calculate and release all sums payable under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (including full salary for the maximum lengths of leave authorized under the Act, as well as the bonus amount eligible)
Similar Cases
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " What Are The Maternity Benefits Given To Pregnant Employees?" by clicking the button below.
Comments