CAT observed that it is
a fact that temporary, ad hoc or contract employees do not enjoy the same
benefits as a regular employee but request for maternity leave stood on a
different footing.
In a significant ruling,
the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has said that temporary, ad hoc and
contract women employees are also entitled to maternity leave and consequent
benefits akin to regular staff.
One Anuradha Arya, a
guest teacher at Government Girl’s Senior Secondary School, West Patel Nagar
(New Delhi) had moved the CAT under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act saying she has been denied grant of maternity leave and benefits as per the
maternity benefit Act, 1961 by the Respondents.
Arya was also orally told
that she has been terminated after she was forced to take the maternity leave
without permission from the school.
The ruling is set to
benefit lakhs of working women across the country,
“In view of the
discussions above, I am of the view that benefits of maternity leave with full
salary cannot be denied to a female employee appointed on contractual basis.
This view finds support in various judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court cited
above. The applicant is entitled to maternity leave as per provision of Section
5 of the maternity benefit Act, 1961. I, accordingly allow this OA with the
following direction to the respondents: “The applicant may be allowed to resume
service as a guest teacher in terms of her original engagement letter dated
07.07.2015. The respondents shall give the back wages to the applicant w.e.f.
01.12.2015 till the disposal of this application with all consequential
benefits for the academic year 2015-2016,” said the judgment by CAT Member
Praveen Mahajan.
The school had cited
service rules to say that six month’s paid maternity leave was available only
to regular teachers and not ad- hoc/temporary/contract teachers
Arya’s lawyer Amit K
Pateria emphasized before the CAT that the applicant is entitled to the
maternity benefit upto 2nd pregnancy as per the statutory law on the subject.
“This was the first issue of the applicant and she had applied for maternity
leave for the first time”, he argued.
The ad hoc employees, he
argued are not precluded from availing maternity leave and thus action of the
respondents is discriminatory under Article 42 of Constitution of India.
The CAT observed that it
is a fact that temporary, ad hoc or contract employees do not enjoy the same
benefits as a regular employee but requests for maternity leave stood on a
different footing.
“it is important to
record that a consistent view has been taken by the courts, and rightly so,
that contractual employees cannot be equated with regular employees. The
benefits accruing to an adhoc employee, are necessarily different than those
admissible to a regular employee. The contention of the respondents, and their
rejection order dated 31.08.2015 of maternity leave to the applicant is based
on this very premise. While this may be true in all other cases of ad hoc
employees, the nature of the “benefit” being claimed by the applicant in the
instant OA, cannot be routinely clubbed, or, equated to any “other benefit”
being claimed by an ad hoc employee. Grant of the benefit of maternity leave to
a woman employee, whether ad hoc or regular, has to be dealt with on a
different footing”, it said.
The CAT based its ruling
on a Supreme Court judgment of 2000 (3) SCC 224 in the case of „Municipal
Corporation of Delhi Vs. Female Workers(Muster Roll) and another‟ which said
women who constitute almost half of the segment of the society have to be
honoured and treated with dignity at cases where they work to earn their livelihood”.
“To become a mother is
the most natural phenomenon in the life of a woman. Whatever is needed to
facilitate the birth of child to a woman who is in service, the employer has to
be considerate and sympathetic towards her and must realize the physical
difficulties which a working woman would face in performing her duties at the
workplace while carrying a baby in a womb or while rearing up the child after
birth”, the Supreme Court had said.
Arya had joined the
school on September 15, 2014 and her appointment was renewed in July 2015. At
that time her pregnancy was at an advanced stage.
Her request for
maternity leave was rejected by the Principal.
She later submitted
several representations to other school authorities.
Arya was advised
complete bed rest by her doctor. Under the circumstances, while she
awaited response from school authorities, she was left with no other option
than taking maternity leave.
She was also worried
that the academic session was about to come to end and the school will start
engaging ad hoc teachers for the next academic session of 2016-17.
perunduraihrforum@gmail.com
