Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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,

Latest Legal News