The Bombay High Court has delivered a significant judgment clarifying the limits of maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 for employees on ad-hoc contractual tenure. The Court held that maternity leave cannot be claimed after the expiry of a fixed-term contract, even if the application for leave was made during the subsistence of employment. This ruling underscores the importance of a subsisting employer-employee relationship for availing statutory maternity benefits.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Somaiya Vidyavihar KJ Somaiya College of Arts and Commerce and its Principal, challenged two orders passed under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The orders directed the petitioners to pay maternity benefits to Respondent No. 3, Dr. Paankhi Agrawal, who was employed on an ad-hoc contractual basis. The core dispute revolved around whether maternity benefits could be claimed after the expiry of the contractual tenure.
Key Facts
- Respondent No. 3 was appointed as an Assistant Professor on an ad-hoc contractual basis on two occasions:
- First appointment: 27 January 2023 to 30 April 2023
- Second appointment: 13 June 2023 to 30 April 2024
- On 27 March 2024, Respondent No. 3 applied for maternity leave, stating her expected date of delivery as 18 July 2024 and seeking leave from 14 June 2024.
- The petitioners contended that the maternity leave sought commenced after the expiry of her contractual tenure (30 April 2024), and thus, she was not entitled to benefits.
- Respondent No. 3 delivered a child on 28 June 2024, after her contractual tenure had ended.
- On 14 October 2024, Respondent No. 3 filed a complaint before the Inspector under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, alleging wrongful denial of maternity benefits.
Procedural History
- 13 January 2025: The Inspector passed an order directing the petitioners to pay Rs. 2,43,500 towards maternity benefits (26 weeks' salary plus maternity bonus) and refrain from terminating Respondent No. 3's services during the maternity period.
- 7 July 2025: The Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioners' appeal, upholding the Inspector's order.
- Present Petition: The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the orders dated 13 January 2025 and 7 July 2025.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the orders dated 13 January 2025 and 7 July 2025.
- A declaration that Respondent No. 3 was not entitled to maternity benefits after the expiry of her contractual tenure.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether an employee on an ad-hoc contractual tenure is entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 after the expiry of her contractual appointment, particularly when the maternity leave sought commences after the cessation of employment.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 2017 do not apply to the petitioner-college, as it is an educational institution exempted under Section 3(9) of the latter Act.
- Respondent No. 3's contractual tenure ended on 30 April 2024, and the maternity leave sought commenced after this date, thus extinguishing any entitlement to benefits.
- There was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and Respondent No. 3 at the time the maternity leave was sought.
- Respondent No. 3 failed to comply with Section 6 of the Act, which requires notice of maternity leave to be given 8 weeks prior to the expected date of delivery.
For the Respondent No. 3
- The Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 2017 applies to the petitioner-college, and consequently, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 governs the service conditions of Respondent No. 3.
- Respondent No. 3 had rendered continuous service for more than 80 days during the 12 months preceding her expected delivery, satisfying the qualifying period under Section 5(2) of the Act.
- The application for maternity leave was made during the subsistence of her employment, and the denial of benefits was unjustified.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. Kavita Yadav v. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department & Ors. and the Delhi High Court's decision in Manisha Priyadarshini v. Aurobindo College-Evening & Ors. to argue that maternity benefits extend beyond the duration of the contract.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, particularly Sections 5(2) and 12, and the factual matrix of the case.
"The maternity benefit contemplated under the Act is one arising out of and during the subsistence of the employer-employee relationship. In the present case, it is an admitted position that Respondent No.3 delivered the child on 28th June 2024, a date which fell after the expiry of her ad-hoc contractual appointment on 30th April 2024. In these circumstances, the benefit of any leave, even the maternity leave could not be claimed from the Petitioner-College after the cessation of her ad-hoc contractual tenure."
The Court emphasized that Section 5(2) of the Act entitles a woman to maternity benefits only if she has worked for not less than 80 days in the 12 months preceding her expected delivery. However, this entitlement is contingent upon the existence of an employer-employee relationship during the period for which the benefit is claimed. In this case, Respondent No. 3's contractual tenure ended on 30 April 2024, and the maternity leave sought commenced after this date. Thus, there was no subsisting employer-employee relationship during the period of claimed benefits.
The Court also rejected the applicability of Section 12 of the Act, which protects women from dismissal or discharge during pregnancy or maternity leave. The Court noted that Respondent No. 3's appointment ended by efflux of time, not by dismissal or discharge, and there was no evidence of premature termination on account of her pregnancy.
"The reliance placed by the learned counsel for Respondent No.3 on the decision in Dr. Kavita Yadav (supra), in our view, is misplaced and does not advance the case of Respondent No.3. In the said case, the appellant's contractual appointment had been extended on two occasions... the application for maternity leave was made and the leave itself commenced during the currency of her employment. It was in those peculiar facts that the Supreme Court held that the appellant therein could not be denied maternity benefits merely because her contractual tenure expired during the period of maternity leave."
The Court distinguished the present case from Dr. Kavita Yadav and Manisha Priyadarshini, noting that in both those cases, the maternity leave commenced during the subsistence of employment. In contrast, Respondent No. 3's contractual tenure ended before the commencement of the maternity leave, and there was no evidence of discriminatory or punitive action by the petitioners.
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders dated 13 January 2025 and 7 July 2025. The Court held that Respondent No. 3 was not entitled to maternity benefits as her contractual tenure had expired before the commencement of the maternity leave. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute in favor of the petitioners. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Maternity Benefits Require Subsisting Employer-Employee Relationship
- The judgment clarifies that maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 can only be claimed during the subsistence of an employer-employee relationship. Employees on fixed-term contracts cannot claim benefits for periods after the expiry of their tenure.
- Practitioners must emphasize the timing of the maternity leave application and the cessation of employment while arguing similar cases. If the leave commences after the expiry of the contract, the employee is not entitled to benefits.
Distinguishing Precedents: Context Matters
- The Court's analysis highlights the importance of factual distinctions in applying precedents. While Dr. Kavita Yadav and Manisha Priyadarshini established that maternity benefits cannot be denied during employment, this judgment limits their applicability to cases where the leave commences after the cessation of employment.
- Employers must ensure that contractual terms clearly define the tenure and conditions for availing benefits. Courts will scrutinize whether the cessation of employment was a natural expiry or a discriminatory/punitive action.
Qualifying Period Alone Is Not Sufficient
- While Section 5(2) of the Act prescribes a qualifying period of 80 days of work in the preceding 12 months, this alone does not entitle an employee to benefits. The employer-employee relationship must subsist during the period for which benefits are claimed.
- Employees on ad-hoc or fixed-term contracts must plan their leave applications carefully to ensure they fall within the contractual tenure. Failure to do so may result in the denial of benefits, as seen in this case.
