Section 84 BNSS | Mechanical Declaration as ‘Proclaimed Person’ Without Due Procedure Illegal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail is the Exception, Not the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5 Crore Drug Racket Adopted Son Is Class I Heir—Collateral Relatives Cannot Challenge Will in Probate Court: Madras High Court Assignment of Leasehold Rights is Transfer of Immovable Property, Not Supply of Services: Bombay High Court Quashes GST Show Cause Notice Against Aerocom Irretrievable Breakdown Is Cruelty in Itself When the Marriage Has Become a Legal Fiction: Calcutta High Court Grants Divorce Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means Attracts Prima Facie Offence Under Section 69 BNS: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Criminal Proceedings in False Promise of Marriage Case Scheduled Areas Are Constitutionally Protected, Not Constitutionally Frozen: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Municipal Inclusion of Tribal Territories Death of Innocents Due to Spurious Liquor Is a Serious Blow to Society—Bail Cannot Be Granted Merely Because Viscera Reports Are Inconclusive: Orissa High Court When the Sole Eyewitness Is Dead, Confession Alone Can’t Convict: Madras High Court Acquits Chain Snatching Accused Office of Advocate in Residential Building Not a Commercial Use: MP High Court Absence of Judicial Satisfaction Renders Declaration Under Section 82 CrPC Illegal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PO Order No Entitlement to Interest Beyond 1.5% Without Agreed Terms: MP High Court Dismisses Creditors' Appeals Against Official Liquidator's Adjudication Supervisory Jurisdiction Is Not Appellate Review : Kerala High Court Refuses to Interfere with Pension Reduction Ordered Without Regular Disciplinary Enquiry Revenue Authorities Cannot Alter Mutation of Acquired Land Based on ‘Recalled’ Judicial Orders: Karnataka High Court Section 45 Cannot Justify Indefinite Detention - Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Defeats Article 21: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 223 BNSS | No Cognizance Without Complainant's Oath: Gauhati High Court 304A IPC | No Presumption of Rash Driving Merely Because of Accident: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Child Death Case Auction Purchaser Has No Absolute Right: Calcutta High Court Upholds Borrower's Right of Redemption Under SARFAESI Act 15 Days’ Notice Under TP Act Is Sufficient To Terminate Monthly Tenancy After Lease Expiry: Bombay High Court Indefinite Blacklisting Without Authority or Hearing is Civil Death in Disguise: Allahabad High Court Environmental Tribunal Cannot Be A Toothless Watchdog… It Must Act Without Waiting For The Metaphorical Godot: Andhra Pradesh High Court FIR Lodged After Marital Breakdown Based on “Emotional Outburst”, Not Rape: Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Case Post-Divorce SARFAESI | Deposit Before Bank Can’t Be Treated as Statutory Pre-Deposit Before DRAT: Kerala High Court Truth Cannot Be Gagged by Injunction: Madras High Court Refuses Celebrity Chef’s Plea to Restrain Allegedly Defamatory Social Media Posts on Intimate Relationship Probate Not Mandatory for Will Executed in Keonjhar – Civil Court Can Decide Title Based on Unprobated Will: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Daughter’s Suit Against Valid Gift to Nephew

Maternity Benefits Under The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 Are Not Applicable To Advocates Engaged On A Contractual Basis: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has clarified that maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 are not applicable to advocates engaged on a contractual basis, overturning a previous decision that granted such benefits to Annwesha Deb, a contractual advocate.

The Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) challenged a lower court’s judgment that entitled Ms. Deb, a contractual advocate engaged with the Juvenile Justice Board, to maternity benefits akin to those available to permanent employees. The Authority contested this, asserting that the engagement of Ms. Deb and similarly placed advocates was purely contractual and professional, not employment.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Saurabh Banerjee, meticulously analyzed the definitions of ‘employer’, ‘employee’, and ‘wages’ under Sections 3(d), 3(n), and other relevant sections of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. They determined that Ms. Deb was not an employee but a professional engaged under a specific contract, and her remuneration did not constitute ‘wages’ as defined by the Act because it lacked the regularity and permanence characteristic of wage employment.

The court noted, "The Act of 1961 envisages the establishment of an employer-employee relationship that involves regular payment for services rendered, not merely professional fees contingent on duties performed.”

Referencing various precedents, the court underscored the distinction between contractual engagements and employment, concluding that extending maternity benefits in such cases would misinterpret the legislative intent of the Maternity Benefit Act, which aims to protect women employed in establishments with a more traditional employer-employee framework.

Decision: The appeal by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority was allowed, setting aside the lower court’s decision to grant maternity benefits to Ms. Deb. The court dismissed related applications as infructuous.

Date of Decision: April 23, 2024

Delhi State Legal Services Authority vs. Annwesha Deb

Latest Legal News