LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS: MATERNITY BENEFITS ACT



Women face grave discrimination in many spheres of their lives. Discrimination resulting from their biological role in in the nature of childbearing and motherhood is one such sphere. The Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (Act) is a step towards bringing an end to such discrimination and also protecting the socio-economic rights of female workers during and even after the end of their pregnancy.[1]

Objective and Importance of the Legislation

The Maternity Benefits Act was enacted by the Parliament in 1961. The principle purpose of this legislation is to regulate the employment of women in certain establishments during certain periods before childbirth and to provide maternity benefits.[2]

The Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll)[3] has best explained the importance of this legislation, as follows:

“The Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 aims to provide all the facilities to a working woman in a dignified manner, so that she may overcome the state of motherhood honourably, undeterred by the fear of being victimised for forced absence during the pre or post-natal period.”

Further, the Act also pursues the objective of the State to secure equal rights, for both women and men, to adequate means of livelihood and equal pay for equal work, as provided under Article 39 of the Constitution of India.[4] Article 42 of the Constitution also provides that the State must endeavour to ensure just and human conditions for maternity relief, towards which the Act is a major step.

Scope of the Legislation

The Act extends to the entire territory of India.[5] It applies to every establishment, including but not limited to factories, mines, plantations, along with Government establishments, etc. The Act also applies to every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in a State, where 10 or more persons are or were employed on any day of the preceding 12 months.[6] The provisions of this Act overlap some of the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act). Hence, the Act is not applicable to any establishment where the provisions of the ESI Act are applicable.[7]

The Act entitles all women to maternity benefits. The only criteria required to be fulfilled is that the woman must have worked in an establishment for a period of 80 days or more during the 12 months immediately preceding her expected date of delivery.[8]

Section 27 of the Act also allows certain flexibility to organisations in providing maternity benefits, by allowing them to provide benefits that are more favourable than those stipulated in the Act.[9] Thus, it can be said that the Act provides for minimum standards of maternity benefits that must be provided by any organisation.

Analysis of Important Provisions

The Act is a special legislation enacted for the purpose of regulating the employment of women and provision of certain benefits to them during a certain time period before and after child-birth.[10] This is laid down in the preamble of the Act, giving a clear picture of what the legislation aims to achieve.

Every Woman is Entitled to Maternity Benefits

Section 4 of the Act prohibits an employer from knowingly employing any woman in any establishment during the specific six weeks immediately following the day of the delivery, miscarriage or medical termination of the pregnancy. No woman is allowed to work in any establishment during this period, out of her own volition, as well. No woman should be made to do any work which may interfere with her pregnancy.[11] There is no ambiguity in these provisions in order to secure the necessary protection to women and their children, during the period before and after child birth.

Section 5 of the Act entitles every woman to maternity benefits, and her employer is liable for the payment to a woman worker at the rate of average daily wages for the period of her actual absence, immediately preceding and including the day of her delivery and for the next six weeks post the day of delivery.[12]

The minimum period for which maternity benefits must be provided is twenty-six weeks, out of which not more than eight weeks shall account for a period prior to her expected delivery.[13] The 2017 Amendment has inserted two more provisions in this section under which, a woman who legally adopts a child below the age of three months or a commissioning mother shall both, be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of twelve weeks from the date child is handed over to her. However, if the nature of her work permits her to work from home then the employer may allow her to do so during the maternity benefit period.[14]

A woman is also entitled to appoint a nominee to which maternity benefits are to be paid, whether in the case of her death or otherwise, through a notice. This notice includes details such as the date from which she will be absent and the date of the expected delivery.[15]

Healthcare and well-Being of a Pregnant Woman

Section 8 provides for a medical bonus of one thousand rupees, if no pre or post-natal care is provided by the employer.[16] In the case of a medical termination of pregnancy, miscarriage, tubectomy, or any other illness, a woman is entitled to leave wages at the rate of maternity benefit for the period as specified in the Act.[17]

Every woman who, after delivery of a child, returns to work is allowed to take two breaks during her working hours, for nursing the child, until the child attains the age of 15 months.[18] The 2017 Amendment has also inserted Section 11-A, which provides for a creche facility in or near every establishment having fifty or more employees. The employer must allow at least four visits a day to the creche. Further, the establishment has to intimate the available benefits to every woman in writing and electronically at the time of their employment.[19]

Safeguards and Penalties

The Act prohibits dismissal of the woman or reduction of her wages by the employer during the period in which benefits are availed in compliance with the provisions of the Act.[20] The Act mandates the maintenance of records, displaying an abstract of the provisions of the Act, etc. in order to avoid exploitation by the employer.[21] The Act has also laid down provisions for administration, enforcement and penalties to be levied in contravention of its provisions.

Judicial Interpretation - Importance of a Social Welfare Legislation

The courts of law have generally interpreted the provisions of the Act in a manner to ensure maximum benefit for women workers. This can be seen in the judgments cited below hereinafter.

The Delhi High Court in Dr. Ankita Baidya v. Union of India &Ors.[22] noted that that the Act is a piece of social welfare legislation, which means that it’s reach has to be as expansive as possible.

In B. Shah v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore[23], the doctrine of, beneficial construction was conclusively and comprehensively discussed in relation to social legislations. It was held that, while interpreting beneficial pieces of legislations such as the Maternity Benefits Act, emphasis must be placed on its objectives, which are to provide social justice to women workers employed in certain work establishments. Vide this rule, a woman worker can nurse her child, maintain the level of her previous efficiency and output by preserving her energy as a worker.

The goal of providing such benefits is to preserve the efficiency of the working women which is beneficial to the long-term interest of both the employers and employees.

The courts have also liberally construed the provisions related to computation of ‘days of leave’ and held that wages must be paid even for Sundays and other non-working days, since it is the legislative intent to compensate a woman for the entire period of her absence.[24]

In K. Chandrika v. Indian Red Cross Society and Anr[25]  it was held that the employer is not at freedom to terminate or remove the employee illegally through arbitrary means even if the benefits are adequately allotted to the employees consequentially. The court highlighted that the scheme of the Act increases the economic burden on the employer who then tries to indulge in unwanted activities such as lay-off, retrenchment or may try to evade the cost of crèche, etc., which is illegal. While some of these shortcomings were resolved with the 2017 amendment, some newer shortcomings have resurfaced in the new labour codes about to be enacted soon.

Effect of the new Industrial Relations Code, 2019

The Code on Industrial Relations, which seeks to subsume many labour laws, including the Maternity Benefits Act, brings to the fore a major problem. Presently, the Act does not allow the dismissal of a woman during her pregnancy, unless it is for reasons of gross misconduct. However, section 68[26] of the new Code allows an employer to dismiss a woman worker during her pregnancy, if the employer does not deprive her of maternity benefits.

However, once a woman is dismissed, there will be no duty on the employer to ensure the availability of a creche facility, and other costs that would be incurred by the employer after the woman resumes her duty. The Government, through the passing of this Bill, seeks to nullify the judgment given in K. Chandrika[27], allowing employers to dismiss pregnant women to save costs.

While the rest of the legislation remains largely the same, this fallacy in the provisions of the new Code is severely detrimental to the interests of the woman workers and must be resolved before the Bill is passed in the Parliament.

Suggestions & Conclusion

The Maternity Benefits Act, as stated by the courts of law on many occasions, is an important piece of social welfare legislation that secures the socio-economic well-being of women through equity, rather that equality. Childbearing involves much physical and mental stress which women go through. In such a situation, it is only fair to ensure that they are not deprived of their economic needs during this time, rather than subjecting them to the same treatment as male workers. This legislation goes a long way in ensuring true equality.

However, while India ranks quite high among other countries, nations such as Canada, Japan and Germany offer greater amount of paid leaves and maternity benefits to their workers, as can be seen in the following chart:[28]

 


In this chart, the UNDP measured the Gender Inequality Index for various countries. In the above data, it was also found that Canada, Japan and Germany have greater amounts of leaves and benefits provided to women during the period of their pregnancy.

Based on this data, it is clear that there is a correlation between gender equality and maternity benefits. It further shows that there is still much room for improvement for India when it comes to gender equality. Thus, India should look to other countries and their policies in order to improve their own policies and take a greater step towards equality for everyone.



[1] Vandana Kandari v. University of Delhi, (2010) 170 DLT 755

[2] Preamble, Maternity Benefits Act, 1961.

[3] Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) 2000 I LLJ 846 (SC).

[4] Art. 39, Constitution of India.

[5] Section 1, Maternity Benefits Act, 1961. 

[6] Section 2(1)(i), Maternity Benefits Act, 1961. 

[7] Section 5A, Maternity Benefits Act, 1961. 

[8] Section 5, Maternity Benefits Act, 1961. 

[9] Section 27, Maternity Benefits Act, 1961.

[10] Preamble, Maternity Benefits Act, 1961.

[11] Section 4, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

[12] Section 5(1) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

[13] Section 5, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

[14] Maternity Benefits (Amendment) Act, 2017.

[15] Section 6, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

[16] Section 8, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

[17] Section 9, 9A, 10, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

[18] Section 11, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

[19] Section 11-A, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

[20] Section 12 and 13, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

[21] Section 19, 20, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

[22] Dr. Ankita Baidya v. Union of India &Ors., W.P. (C) 8748/2018 & CM APPL.45209/2018

[23] B. Shah v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, 1978 A.I.R SC 12.

[24] Parthasarathy M. v. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) and Ors. A.I.R 1986 SC 458

[25] K. Chandrika v. Indian Red Cross Society and Anr., 131 (2006) D.L.T 585.

[26] Section 68, Industrial Relations Code, 2019.

[27] Supra.

[28] Data sourced from Human Development Report 2019, United Nations Development Programme, available at http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/2019-human-development-index-ranking (Last Visited Sept. 19, 2020).

Comments