Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Maternity Leave a Fundamental Right for All Female Employees”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Shimla, 12th June 2023: In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, has declared maternity leave as a fundamental right for all female employees, including those on daily wage, contractual, ad hoc, permanent, and temporary basis. The court emphasized that denying maternity leave to any category of female employees is violative of their constitutional rights and principles of social justice.

In the case of State of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Sita Devi, the court upheld the right to maternity leave under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, recognizing the significance of motherhood and the right to a dignified life for women in the workplace. The judgment stated, “Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to motherhood, and to become a mother is the most natural phenomenon in the life of a woman.”

The court referred to various international covenants and treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), to highlight India’s obligation to provide maternity benefits to working women. It noted that maternity leave is a matter of social justice and gender equality.

Furthermore, the court pointed out that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, applies to all female employees, irrespective of their employment status, and granting maternity leave to casual and daily wage workers is essential to ensure equal treatment for women in the workforce.

“The claim for maternity leave is founded on grounds of fair play and social justice. Women who constitute almost half of our society have to be honored and treated with dignity at places where they work to earn their livelihood,” the court remarked, reaffirming the importance of maternity leave as a fundamental human right.

The judgment has far-reaching implications and has quashed the office memorandum and circular that restricted maternity leave for certain categories of female employees. The court unequivocally stated that female employees, regardless of their employment status, are entitled to maternity leave at par with regular employees.

This landmark judgment sets a precedent for other courts in the country and reinforces the protection of women’s rights, dignity, and health during pregnancy. It reiterates the obligation of the State to ensure just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief for all female employees.

The ruling has been hailed by women’s rights advocates and is being seen as a significant step towards gender equality and women empowerment in the workforce.

Date of Decision: 25 July, 2023

State of H.P. & Ors.   vs Sita Devi    

Latest Legal News