The Karnataka High Court granted an interim stay on the state government’s notification that mandated one day of paid menstrual leave per month for women workers in all registered industrial and commercial establishments. The notification, issued on November 20, directed that the benefit be extended to women aged between 18 and 52, including permanent, contractual and outsourced employees. It applied to establishments governed by various labour statutes such as the Factories Act, the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, the Plantations Labour Act, the Beedi and Cigar Workers Act and the Motor Transport Workers Act. The notification required employers to allow one day of paid leave during menstruation without insisting on medical certification, and it stipulated that the leave could be availed only within the same month and would not carry forward.
The notification was challenged by the Bangalore Hotels Association and the management of a manufacturing company. They argued that none of the governing labour statutes contained provisions authorizing or mandating menstrual leave and that the state government lacked the power to introduce such a requirement through an executive notification. They contended that leave entitlements were already comprehensively provided under existing laws and that the new mandate imposed an undue financial and administrative burden, particularly on small and medium-sized establishments. The petitioners submitted that the government had bypassed the statutory framework by creating an additional category of compulsory leave without legislative amendment or proper rule-making authority.
During the hearing, the High Court examined whether the state had followed the due process required for altering conditions of employment across multiple industrial sectors. The Court specifically questioned whether any stakeholder consultation had taken place before issuing the notification, noting that changes of such magnitude must usually involve dialogue with affected parties. Counsel for the petitioners maintained that no consultation was held and that the notification had been issued unilaterally. Taking note of these concerns, the Court observed that the government appeared to have acted without establishing the legal basis necessary for introducing new employment benefits that would substantially affect employers.
Given these issues, the High Court ordered an interim stay on the operation of the notification. This stay temporarily suspends the requirement for establishments to provide mandatory menstrual leave until the matter is fully adjudicated. The Court directed the state government to file its objections and clarified that the government is free to seek modification of the interim order if necessary. The case has been scheduled for further hearing after the winter vacation period.
The stay effectively halts the implementation of the policy for the time being and signals the Court’s view that such changes to labour rights and employer obligations must be rooted in statutory authority and developed through proper consultative mechanisms. The proceedings now focus on determining whether the notification can stand on the strength of existing laws or whether the government exceeded its administrative powers in attempting to introduce a new category of leave without explicit legislative sanction.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.