- within Employment and HR topic(s)
- in United States
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
- within Employment and HR, Energy and Natural Resources and Finance and Banking topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
In a significant reaffirmation of gender justice and labour welfare, the Delhi High Court recently ruled that contractual employees cannot be denied maternity leave solely because of the nature of their engagement. The verdict underscores a progressive interpretation of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 ("Act") aligning with constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity and non-discrimination. This development invites a closer look at the HR compliance frameworks for entities. Many organisations employ large numbers of women through fixed term or project-based contracts specially in IT, education and health sectors. The ruling therefore expands both the scope of statutory entitlements as well as the compliance expectations placed on employers.
Statutory Framework
The Act governs employment related maternity rights across India ensuring that no woman is disadvantaged because of childbirth. Section 5 of the Act mandates paid maternity leave of up to twenty-six weeks, while Section 12 prohibits dismissal or discrimination during maternity. The statutory protection applies to any woman employed directly or through any agency for wages in any establishment indicating that employment status rather than contractual form determines entitlement. This broad drafting has long suggested legislative intent to protect women irrespective of any respective classification though implementation in public and private establishments has been severely uneven.
Further, under Article 42 of the Constitution of India, the State must make provisions for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief. This constitutional directive, coupled with Article 14's equality guarantee provides the interpretive foundation for courts to construe maternity legislation liberally in favour of women workers as emphasised in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll)1.
High Court's Decision
The petitioner, a contractual employee engaged with a government department, was denied maternity leave on the ground that her appointment was temporary and governed solely by contract. Challenging this decision, she argued that the Act does not distinguish between permanent and contractual employees. The Delhi High Court agreed. Referring to Female Workers (Muster Roll)2 and subsequent cases, the Court reiterated that maternity benefits flow from the status of being a woman employee, not from the tenure or type of engagement. Denying such benefits to contractual staff, it held, would amount to gender discrimination and violate Articles 14, 15(3), and 42 of the Constitution. The Court further reasoned that the MB Act, being a welfare legislation, must be interpreted purposively to advance its remedial objective. To limit its scope to permanent employees would frustrate legislative intent and create arbitrary distinctions among women performing the same functions.
Expanding on this reasoning, the Court relied upon the settled principle that welfare statutes must be interpreted liberally to effectuate their purpose rather than to defeat it as stated in B. Shah v. Labour Court, Coimbatore3. It also drew Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal4 where the Supreme Court recognised that family and caregiving responsibilities are integral to gender equality, thereby giving a constitutional dimension to work-life balance and parental rights. The Delhi Court thus harmonised statutory interpretation with evolving constitutional jurisprudence that views maternity as a matter of substantive equality rather administrative convenience.
Judicial Evolution: From Muster Roll to Contractual Labour
This ruling continues a clear judicial trajectory. In Female Workers (Muster Roll) verdict, the Supreme Court extended maternity benefits to daily wage and casual workers, observing that a woman's right to motherhood cannot depend on her employment classification. Similarly, in Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare5, the Court upheld maternity leave for a contractual medical officer, noting that contractual service does not extinguish statutory rights. More recently, the Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal v. Barnali Dey6 and the Madras High Court in K. Saraswathi v. State of Tamil Nadu7 reiterated that the right to maternity leave attaches to the nature of work performed not the nomenclature of the appointment. The Delhi High Court's 2025 decision thus cements a consensus where public authorities and private employers alike must ensure uniform maternity protection across workforce categories.
The judicial evolution also shows a trend toward de-linking statutory rights from the employer's internal classification systems. Courts have repeatedly refused to accept arguments based on budgetary limitations or temporary posts for instance in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh8. Furthermore, international human rights principles particularly India's obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) which mandates equality in employment related benefits regardless of contractual form. This jurisprudence strengthens the interpretive consensus that maternity protection operates as a right inherent in employment itself.
Constitutional and Policy Dimensions
At its core, maternity relief is not merely a statutory benefit but an expression of constitutional morality, an aspect of human dignity and equality. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasised that beneficial legislation must be construed to protect vulnerable groups and that contractual arrangements cannot be used to defeat fundamental rights as in the landmark case People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India.9 From a policy standpoint, the judgement complements India's international obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the International Labour Organization's Maternity Protection Convention, 2000 (No. 183), both of which stress universality of maternity protection.
Business and Compliance Implications
For employers, particularly those engaging large contractual or project-based workforces, the ruling has substantial compliance consequences. Contractual classification is no shield and women on fixed-term or outsourced contracts are entitled to maternity benefits equivalent to permanent staff. Liability extends to principal employers where manpower agencies or vendors supply women workers, the principal employer may remain liable under the Act if benefits are denied. Policy harmonisation is essential. The HR policies, services, rules and contractual aspects should uniformly reflect statutory maternity entitlements. Documentation and budgeting are accordingly imperative. Organisations must account for maternity leave obligations within project budgets and staffing plans, ensuring that no contract terms contravene welfare statutes. Risk of litigation and reputational harm. Non-compliance now exposes both legal and public-relations risk specially in sectors where women form a significant portion of the workforce.
Looking Ahead
The High Court's ruling underscores a growing judicial consensus wherein maternity protection is a universal right of women workers irrespective of contractual status. As the workforce becomes more flexible and project driven, courts are signalling that welfare entitlements must evolve in parallel. Businesses would be prudent to move beyond minimum statutory compliance and adopt gender inclusive HR policies that recognise maternity as a right not a privilege. The law after all, increasingly measures corporate conduct not only by profit but by principle.
In the coming years, jurisprudence may expand maternity protection into new forms of employment particularly for gig, platform and remote workers under the Code on Social Security, 2020. Future policy reforms may also consider shared parental leave, aligning India's framework with global best practices. For the corporate sector, this shift offers an opportunity to redefine workforce equality as a driver of long-term resilience and compliance integrity.
Footnotes
1 (2000) 3 SCC 224
2 Ibid
3 (1978) 4 SCC 419
4 (2022) 7 SCC 500
5 Delhi HC 2013
6 W.P.A. No. 414 of 2019 (Cal. H.C. Sept. 3, 2019)
7 Writ Petition No. 30807 of 2024 (Mad. H.C. Oct. 30, 2024)
8 (2017) 1 SCC 148
9 (1982) 3 SCC 235
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.
