The Bombay High Court ruled that an employee cannot be denied maternity leave on the basis of technical breaks in service and emphasised that the maternity benefit provisions are meant to advance women’s health, dignity and reproductive rights without being defeated by formalistic interpretations. The Division Bench considered a challenge to the denial of maternity leave by an employer, who refused the benefit on the ground that the applicant had breaks in service before the expected date of delivery. The employee contended that despite having such breaks, she remained entitled to maternity leave under the applicable statutory regime and that a narrow construction adopted by the employer would undermine the very purpose of maternity benefit laws.
The Court analysed the legislative intent behind maternity leave and the relevant provisions, observing that the object of the law is to ensure that women are not disadvantaged in employment due to pregnancy and childbirth, and that the benefits must be extended in a manner consistent with this intent. The employer’s contention that technical breaks in service disentitled the employee from maternity leave was found to be contrary to this underlying purpose. The Bench noted that the term “continuous service” was not intended to be interpreted in a rigid manner that would penalise women for reasonable gaps that are incidental to employment patterns, especially where there is no intention to defeat statutory protections.
In its reasoning, the High Court emphasised that statutory protections afforded to women during maternity are to be construed broadly to ensure effective implementation and to prevent mechanical or literal interpretations that could undermine the efficacy of the legislation. It observed that technical breaks in service, such as gaps arising from contractual renewals or administrative formalities, must be distinguished from substantive disqualifications that legitimately fall outside the statutory scheme. The Court stressed that women’s reproductive rights and health considerations outweigh formalistic objections when assessing entitlement to maternity leave.
The Court further clarified that denying maternity leave on the basis of procedural or formal breaks in service would be inconsistent with the constitutional and statutory framework that seeks to uphold equality and non-discrimination in employment. It noted that the maternity benefit provisions are part of a broader legal architecture designed to protect women from discriminatory practices and to enable them to balance work and family responsibilities without penalty. Accordingly, the Bench held that employers must give effect to these protections in substance, and not evade them through technicalities that subvert the legislative purpose.
The High Court’s judgment directs that maternity leave cannot be withheld on grounds that are merely technical or administrative in nature where the employee would otherwise qualify for the benefit. The decision reinforces the principle that women’s entitlements under maternity benefit law should be upheld in a manner that reflects the humanitarian and protective objectives of the statute. The ruling serves as a clarion reminder to employers that maternity rights are substantive and must be respected without resort to narrow interpretations that defeat the legislative purpose.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.