The Bombay High Court has unequivocally affirmed that contractual employees are entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, regardless of contractual clauses denying such entitlement. This judgment reinforces statutory protections for working women and invalidates employer attempts to circumvent statutory rights through private agreements.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dr. Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis, an anesthesiologist and Assistant Professor on contractual terms at Seth G.S. Medical College and K.E.M. Hospital, sought maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Her employment was renewed through successive office orders until June 2025, with an agreement dated 12 August 2024 explicitly stating she was not entitled to benefits under the Municipal Corporation’s Service Rules.
Procedural History
- January 2022: Petitioner appointed on contractual basis.
- August 2024: Agreement executed, denying service rule benefits; petitioner was already pregnant.
- August - October 2024: Petitioner submitted multiple applications for maternity leave, citing Section 5 of the Act.
- 21 October 2024: Respondent No. 2 issued impugned communication denying maternity benefits on grounds of contractual status.
- November 2024: Petitioner delivered child; submitted notices under Section 6(5) of the Act.
- June - July 2025: Coordinate Bench of the Court recorded respondents’ in-principle agreement to grant benefits.
- February 2026: Matter heard by this Bench after respondents reversed their position.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned communication and a writ of mandamus directing respondents to grant full maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, including 26 weeks of paid leave and payment of wages.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 overrides contractual terms that exclude maternity benefits for contractual employees, and whether such exclusion violates statutory rights and fundamental guarantees under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on Section 5(2) to establish that the petitioner completed 80 days of service in the 12 months preceding her expected delivery, satisfying the eligibility criteria. He emphasized Section 27, which contains a non-obstante clause stating that the Act prevails over any inconsistent agreement or contract of service. He cited Archana v. State of Maharashtra, MCD v. Female Workers, and Kavita Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) to demonstrate consistent judicial recognition of contractual employees’ entitlement. He further argued that the petitioner’s repeated disclosures of pregnancy and timely notices under Section 6 negated any claim of suppression.
For the Respondent
Counsel contended that the petitioner’s contractual status, as per the 12 August 2024 agreement and office orders, excluded her from benefits under the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Service Rules. He argued that the petitioner concealed her pregnancy at the time of signing the agreement, thereby acting in bad faith. He maintained that the appointment was a stop-gap arrangement, and statutory benefits were not intended for temporary staff, citing Rule 170 of the Service Regulations which requires two years of regular service for entitlement.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a rigorous statutory interpretation of Section 27, noting its opening non-obstante clause: "The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service." The Court held that this language is unambiguous and leaves no room for exclusion based on employment status.
"The submission of the Respondents as canvassed by Mr. Chavan is ex facie contrary to the said provision. The said provision does not carve out an exception qua a contractual employee for the purpose of securing maternity benefits under the said Act."
The Court distinguished the respondents’ reliance on municipal service rules, noting that Section 27 explicitly overrides such internal policies. It further held that the petitioner’s disclosures - through applications dated 20 August, 7 October, and notices under Section 6 - were timely and complete, refuting allegations of suppression.
The Court also invoked Article 21 and Article 42 of the Constitution, affirming that maternity benefits are integral to the right to life with dignity and humane working conditions. It relied on K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Dr. Kavita Yadav to establish that statutory maternity rights survive even after employment ends.
The Court condemned the respondents’ conduct, noting their prior in-principle agreement recorded in court orders, followed by a reversal without justification. It held that such conduct amounted to arbitrariness under Article 14 and undermined the Act’s protective purpose.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 overrides any contractual term denying maternity benefits to contractual employees. The impugned communication was quashed, and respondents were directed to pay full maternity benefits within six weeks.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Contractual Status Is Irrelevant to Statutory Entitlement
- Practitioners must now argue that any employment contract excluding maternity benefits is void to the extent of inconsistency with Section 27.
- Employers cannot rely on internal policies, service rules, or appointment letters to deny statutory maternity rights.
- Legal notices under Section 6 must be treated as conclusive proof of compliance, barring bad faith.
Employers Must Honor Court-Recorded Undertakings
- Failure to comply with court-recorded assurances to grant statutory benefits may attract contempt proceedings.
- Courts will view reversal of such undertakings as manifest arbitrariness under Article 14.
- Legal strategy should include seeking explicit court directions to prevent future non-compliance.
Maternity Rights Are Non-Waivable and Portable
- Entitlement to maternity benefits accrues upon fulfilling Section 5(2) criteria and survives termination of employment.
- Employers must calculate benefits based on actual wages earned in the preceding 12 months, not contractual rates.
- Institutions like hospitals and universities must establish internal mechanisms to identify and process claims from contractual staff without delay.
