Observing that the right to maternity protection cannot be infringed at all, Madras HC directed authorities to reinstate an Anganwadi worker who was terminated from service for availing leave for over 7 months during her pregnancy.
Petitioner K R Kanimozhi, an Anganwadi worker at Vadavanpatti village in Sivaganga district, had conceived twins through In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) after being childless for eleven years. As doctors advised bed rest for the entire gestation period, she submitted a leave letter during Oct 2013 & extended the leave periodically. She delivered the babies in June 2014, but the authorities issued a show-cause notice & subsequently terminated her from service in 2014 for the absence of duty beyond six months citing a GO passed in 1995. She filed two petitions before the High Court Madurai bench in 2014 challenging the termination order & seeking reinstatement with monetary benefits.
The authorities in their counter stated that she had availed of 229 days leave — seven months & 11 days— which attracted termination having exceeded six months. Justice S Srimathy observed that the concept of maternity protection to women was recognised on Nov 29, 1919, by the International Labour Organization. The Bombay Maternity Benefit Bill introduced in 1929 was the first law for working women in India. Thereafter, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, was enacted which provides 12 weeks maternity leave. This was amended in Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, wherein the period of twelve weeks was extended to 26 weeks.
The Judge said it is very unfortunate to note the 1995 GO has not taken into consideration the concept of maternity protection. When the Act clearly grants 12 weeks (26 weeks after amendment) protection to pregnant women, the authorities ought to have passed the GO in consonance with the statutory provision.
The Judge held that the twelve weeks period cannot be taken into account while calculating the 6 months period stated in the GO. After deducting 12 weeks period (3 months), the petitioner availed leave for only 4 months & 11 days, which has not exceeded the six months period stated in the GO. That apart, the judge observed that as per rule 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rules, the employee is entitled to take leave exceeding six months on production of medical certificate. Since the petitioner had produced a medical certificate, she is also entitled to relief under the provision.
Hence, the judge set aside the termination order & directed the authorities to reinstate her in service forthwith.
Source Link
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments