Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

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

Similar News