The Madras High Court (“Madras HC”) in its recent judgement MRB Nurses Empowerment Association vs. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.1held that, nurses employed on a contractual basis will also be entitled to maternity benefits and that the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (“Maternity Act”) would prevail over contractual conditions if the latter either denies or offers less favourable benefits.
Brief facts
The National Rural Health Mission (“NRHM”), a government initiative to enhance healthcare services in rural areas, employs numerous healthcare professionals in Tamil Nadu. The nurses in this initiative were hired on a contractual basis. Despite some nurses having served for over 2 (two) years, they were not provided maternity benefits by the government. The government of Tamil Nadu (“Respondent”) argued that such benefits were not applicable to contractual employees, as opposed to regular government employees.
The MRB Nurses Empowerment Association (“Petitioner”) contended that the NRHM nurses, having worked beyond the 2 (two) year mark, should qualify for paid maternity leave under the Maternity which grants eligible women, 270 (two hundred and seventy) days of maternity leave with pay. However, the Respondent claimed that NRHM nurses, as contractual employees, were only entitled to limited casual leave and were excluded from any broader benefits provided to regular employees. The Respondent cited specific terms in the appointment orders of the NRHM nurses limiting leave benefits for contractual employees, allowing only 1 (one) day of leave per month.
Findings and analysis
The Madras HC relied on a recent Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) ruling in the case of Dr. Kavita Yadav vs. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare2 wherein the Supreme Court addressed the issue of contractual employees' entitlement to maternity benefits. The petitioner doctor in this case was initially denied maternity benefits by her employer, citing the temporary nature of her contract. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Maternity Act applies to contractual employees once they meet the eligibility criteria in Section 5(2) of the Maternity Act i.e. if the employee was employed in the organisation for a period of not less than 80 (eighty) days in the 12 (twelve) months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery, even if maternity benefits extend beyond the contract's duration.
The Supreme Court emphasised that the Maternity Act's purpose is to safeguard women's rights to maternity leave and economic security, and Section 27 provides the Maternity Act with overriding power over conflicting terms in any employment contract, agreement, or law. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that maternity benefits are not restricted by the tenure of employment and that eligible women are entitled to the full range of maternity benefits under the Maternity Act, irrespective of their contract's duration.
Further, in Deepika Singh vs. PGIMER3, Chandigarh although the Maternity Act was not directly applicable, the Supreme Court analysed similar provisions to assert the right to maternity benefits as fundamental to a woman's autonomy and security as a worker and mother. The Supreme Court emphasised that the term ‘maternity benefits' should not be restricted by employment tenure and that the law creates a legal fiction, allowing the employee to be considered in employment solely for maternity leave purposes. The Supreme Court highlighted the following:
- Entitlement under section 5(2) of the Maternity Act: If an employee meets the conditions stipulated in Section 5(2) of the Maternity Act (e.g., working at least 80 (eighty) days in the 12 (twelve) months preceding delivery), she qualifies for full maternity benefits, which cannot be diminished or limited by her contract's end date.
- Section 12(2)(a) of the Maternity Act: This section prohibits an employer from discharging an employee solely due to her absence for maternity, even if her contract period concludes during this time.
- Section 27 of the Maternity Act: This critical provision gives the Maternity Act overriding power, ensuring that any conflicting terms in contracts, agreements, or employment conditions cannot invalidate an employee's right to maternity benefits.
The Supreme Court reasoned that these sections, read together, create a legal presumption, allowing contractual employees to be considered ‘employed' for the sole purpose of receiving maternity benefits under the Maternity Act.
Conclusion
The argument of the Respondent with respect to non-eligibility of contract nurses for maternity leave owing to the terms of their contract was rejected by the Madras HC. The Madras HC went on to affirm that Section 27 of the Maternity Act ensures contract employees' eligibility for maternity benefits notwithstanding less favourable contractual conditions. By securing women's right to maternity benefit in this decision, the Madras HC makes a progressive step in line with the rulings of the Supreme Court, paving the way for meaningful implementation of the Maternity Act through effective enforcement.
Footnotes
1. 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 5801
2. (2024) 1 SCC 421
3. (2023) 13 SCC 681
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
