The government of Karnataka recently issued a notification requiring all registered industrial establishments in the state to provide one day of paid menstrual leave per month to women employees. This directive applied to permanent, contract, and outsourced women workers between the ages of 18 and 52, employed under laws such as the Factories Act, the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, the Plantation Labour Act, the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, and the Motor Transport Workers Act. The policy was intended to offer twelve menstrual leaves annually, without requiring a medical certificate, and with leave recorded separately rather than as part of other leave categories.
Shortly after the notification was issued, a petition was filed before the Karnataka High Court by the Bangalore Hotels Association (along with another establishment) challenging the government’s order. The petitioners argued that the government lacked the authority to impose such a leave mandate by way of executive notification, particularly since the labour statutes under which establishments operate already contain comprehensive leave provisions. They contended that the policy was introduced without consulting employers or seeking their inputs, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The association also claimed that the extra burden imposed on employers could lead to serious civil and financial consequences.
On 9 December 2025, a bench of the Karnataka High Court led by Justice Jyoti M granted an interim stay of the government’s menstrual-leave notification. The court observed that before issuing such a directive, the government should have consulted the relevant stakeholders. It asked the state to file a statement of objections and agreed to hear the matter in greater depth after the winter vacation of the court.
However, later the same day, the High Court recalled its interim stay following a request by the state’s Advocate General, who argued that the stay was contrary to a ruling by the Supreme Court. The court agreed to reconsider the matter and scheduled further hearings for the next day.
In parallel, the government had also extended the paid menstrual leave policy to its own employees, with female government staff between 18 and 52 now eligible to avail one paid menstrual leave day per month. The leave is to be treated separately in attendance records and is not to be clubbed with other leaves. A medical certificate is not required to claim this leave.
Thus, while the policy has formally been rolled out for government employees and was to apply across private and industrial establishments, its implementation has been blocked — at least temporarily — following the High Court’s interim intervention. The future of the policy remains subject to further judicial scrutiny, with arguments to be heard on the question of whether the government had the power to mandate menstrual leave by executive order, the procedural fairness in issuing the notification, and whether such a directive imposes an unjust burden on employers.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.