Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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