Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Objective of Maternity Leave is to Enable Employee to Nurse Her Child, Not to Curb Population – Bombay High Court Rules in Favor of Maternity Leave Regardless of Number of Pre-Employment Children

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Bombay High Court has ruled in a significant judgment that the Airports Authority of India (AAI) cannot deny maternity leave to an employee based on the number of children she had before her employment. The judgment was delivered on the interpretation of the AAI (Leave) Regulations, 2003 concerning maternity benefits.

Legal Point of Judgement: The court examined whether the condition under the AAI Leave Regulations 2003, stipulating fewer than two surviving children for eligibility to maternity leave, applies to children born before the commencement of employment with AAI.

Facts and Issues: The case revolved around an employee, Petitioner No.2, who had one child from a previous marriage before joining AAI and two more children after her employment. AAI denied her maternity leave application for her third child, citing the regulation that restricts maternity leave to employees with fewer than two surviving children.

Interpretation of Regulation: The court observed that the purpose of maternity leave regulations is to help the employee recover post-pregnancy and take care of the newborn, thus ensuring her efficiency as a worker remains intact. Justice Jitendra Jain noted, “The objective of this Regulation is to give maternity leave benefit and not to curb the population.”

Constitutional Mandates: The judgment reinforced that maternity leave is a right protected under various constitutional articles including Article 42, which mandates just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.

Beneficial Regulation: The court emphasized that beneficial regulations like those for maternity leave should be liberally interpreted to support the employee’s rights, especially concerning childbirth and child-rearing, which are integral to a woman’s dignity and privacy under Article 21.

Non-applicability of the ‘Two Children’ Norm: It was decisively noted that conditions imposed by AAI’s 2003 Regulation do not apply to children born prior to the commencement of the employee’s service with the organization. The regulation’s intent, as per the court’s interpretation, is to limit the application of maternity benefits to two instances during the employee’s tenure, not to limit the number of children she can have before employment.

Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the communications denying maternity benefits to Petitioner No.2 and directed AAI to grant maternity benefits for the delivery on September 3, 2012, within eight weeks from the date of the judgment.

Date of Decision: May 10, 2024

Airports Authority of India Workers Union & Anr. Vs. The Under Secretary,

Similar News