Subsequent Declaration Of Juvenility Does Not Vitiate Conviction On Merits: Supreme Court Borrowers Cannot Ignore Bank Accounting Systems And Suspense Accounts To Claim Arbitrary Reductions In Loan Dues: Supreme Court Re-employed Judicial Officers Cannot Claim 6th Pay Commission Scales: Supreme Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Erroneously Exercising Review Jurisdiction On 'Mistaken Notion', Restores Employee's ACP Benefits Trademark Infringement: Defendant Can Cross-Examine Plaintiff On Use Of Brand Name Even If Written Statement Is Not On Record: Supreme Court 'Interest And Welfare Of Child Would Be Best Served': Supreme Court Invokes Parens Patriae In Contempt Plea; Revokes Own Custody Order Mere Absence From MCA Records Cannot Absolve Accused Under Section 138 NI Act If Prima Facie Role Is Shown: Punjab & Haryana High Court Incomplete Or Defective Real Estate Application Cannot Claim Deemed Registration Under Section 5(2) Of RERA Act: Orissa High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Cannot Justify Invoking 'Organized Crime' Offence Under Section 111 BNS Without Fulfilling Statutory Ingredients: Madhya Pradesh High Court 'Testator's Character & Prior Gifts Justify Unequal Distribution': Madras High Court Upholds Holographic Will Minority Status Cannot Arrest Limitation Period For Appeal If Minor Was Represented By Natural Guardian In Original Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Admission Of Property Boundaries In Family Partition Deeds Destroys Coparceners' Claim That Land Remains Joint Ancestral Property: Karnataka High Court Mesne Profits Must Reflect Open Market Letting Value Rather Than Static Contractual Rates: Delhi High Court Law Graduates Who Fail To Clear AIBE Within Two Years Cannot Practice In Any Court, Tribunal Or Revenue Authority: Allahabad High Court Bombay High Court Slams 'Growing Tendency' To Bypass GST Appeals, Says 'Natural Justice' Not A Blanket Excuse For Writ Petitions Proportionate Cost Only Can Be Awarded On Decreed Amount, Not On Total Plaint Valuation: Kerala High 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