Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

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