IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

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