Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

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