Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)ILLJ177Mad; (2008)5MLJ6
..... in b. shah v. presiding officer, labour court, coimbatore and ors. : (1978)illj29sc dealt with the interpretation of the maternity benefit available to the daily wage workers and set the tone for interpreting the provisions of the maternity benefit act, 1961 [for short, 'm.b. act']. the following passage found in paragraph 18 of the said judgment may be usefully extracted below:para 18: ...it has ..... appellate authority that undertakings have been taken from female workers that they will not claim any maternity benefit beyond two deliveries, is a serious allegation and if proved, the petitioners are liable for prosecution under the provisions of the m.b. act, 1961 read with beedi and cigar act 1966. 13. in this context, regarding the power of this court to mould the relief ..... ) of the m.b. act reads as follows:(6) the ..... (conditions of employment) act, 1966 [for short, 'beedi and cigar act']. section 37 of the beedi and cigar act applied the provisions of the m.b. act, 1961 to all the women workers in the beedi industry.7. the third respondents approached the second respondent, who is the notified authority under section 6(6) of the m.b. act for recovering unpaid maternity benefit. section 6(6 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC1274; 2000(2)ALT34(SC); 84(2000)DLT450(SC); [2000(85)FLR185]; JT2000(3)SC13; (2000)ILLJ846SC; (2000)125PLR371; RLW2000(2)SC329; 2000(2)SCALE269; (2000)3SCC224; [20
..... class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise. 26. it consequently issued a direction to the management of the municipal corporation, delhi to extend the benefits of maternity benefit act, 1961 to such muster roll female employees who were in continuous service of the management for three years or more and who fulfilled the conditions set out in section ..... tribunal, by its award dated 2nd of april, 1996, allowed the claim of the female workers (muster roll) and directed the corporation to extend the benefits under the maternity benefit act, 1961 to muster roll female workers who were in the continuous service of the corporation for three years or more. the corporation challenged this judgment in a writ ..... contract of service between municipal corporation of delhi and the women employees (muster roll); and so read these employees immediately become entitled to all the benefits conceived under the maternity benefit act, 1961. we conclude our discussion by providing that the direction issued by the industrial tribunal shall be complied with by the municipal corporation of delhi by approaching ..... attitude of the corporation in respect of a humane problem.3. the corporation in their written statement, filed before the industrial tribunal, pleaded that the provisions under the maternity benefit act, 1961 or central civil services (leave) rules were not applicable to the female workers, engaged on muster roll, as they were all engaged any on daily wages. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 131(2006)DLT585; 2007(3)SLJ479(Delhi)
..... read into the contract of service between municipal corporation of delhi and the women employees (muster roll): and so read these employees immediately become entitled to all the benefits conceived under the maternity benefit act, 1961. we conclude our discussion by providing that the directions issued by the industrial tribunal shall be complied with by the municipal corporation of delhi by approaching the state ..... may, 1980 when it was sent in may, 1980 as alleged. she challenged the communication as malafide and also as vocative of the provisions of section 12 of the maternity benefits act, 1961. the workman had reiterated the stand she had taken in her claim statement on the ground that the termination of her service without assignment of reasons was arbitrary and malafide ..... government as also the central government for issuing necessary notification under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 2 of the maternity benefit act, 1961, if it has not already been issued. in the meantime, the benefits under the act shall be provided to the women (muster roll) employees of the corporation who have been working with them on daily wages.10. in ..... cannot be held that the petitioner had received the communication dated 3rd may, 1980 on 6th may, 1980.8. the petitioner has placed reliance on section 12 of the maternity benefits act, 1961 which reads as follows:12. dismissal during absence or pregnancy. -(1) when a woman absents herself from work in accordance with the provisions of this .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1975Ker86; [1975(30)FLR148]
viswanatha iyer, j.1. this appeal has been referred to a full bench as it involves a nice question relating to the scope of section 5 of the maternity benefit act, 1961 (central act). that act replaced the kerala maternity benefit act, 1957 from 15-8-1970. the 1st respondent-inspector of plantations, mundakayam, inspected the appellant's estate on 6-5-1971 and on such inspection felt that 11 ..... the respective contentions urged before us it is necessary to state at the outset the scope of the various provisions of the maternity benefit act, 1961. this act has been made applicable to establishments in plantation as defined in plantations labour act, 1951. the act is intended to regulate the employment of women in certain establishments for certain periods before and after child birth and to provide ..... irrespective of whether any day is a holiday or not. in the present act the language used is different. the quantum of benefit is also increased and there is nothing to show that period of maternity benefit covers non-working wageless days in the week. when parliament enacted in 1961 the present act they had before them all these various enactments. they had also before them .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 123(2005)DLT138; 2005(84)DRJ53
..... petitioner went on leave with effect from 11.11.2000, after which she delivered a baby on 5.12.2000, the rites cannot escapse its obligation to pay benefits under the maternity benefits act, 1961.14. i accordingly, partly allow the petition. a direction is issued to the respondent rites to calculate and release all amounts payable under the ..... learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of the maternity benefit act, 1961 entitled the petitioner to leave as well as maternity bonus and irrespective of the merits of the claim for reinstatement, those benefits could not be withheld. she has relied upon sections 3, 4 and 5 of the maternity benefit act 1961 to say that its provisions are universally applicable and that the rites ..... being a state agency is also bound by the directiveprinciples of state policy as also articles 14 and 15 of the constitution of india. it is further submitted that the grant of maternity benefit is not a matter of charity; it ..... petitioner is not pressing her claim for reinstatement the issue for decision is whether the respondent would have denied maternity benefits under the 1961 act.9. the nature of maternity benefits and the entitlement of employees have been clearly spelt out by provisions of the act. the provisions of the enactment apply to establishments, which have been defined in an expansive manner. being a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
..... a child on 1.4.1998. as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the action of the second respondent is opposed to provisions of the maternity benefit act, 1961. as per section 5(2) of the maternity benefit act, 1961, the act is applicable to women employees who have rendered service for more than 80 days preceding the date of expected delivery. the ..... the contract of service between the municipal corporation of delhi and the women employees (muster roll), and so read these employees immediately become entitled to all the benefits conceived under the maternity benefit act, 1961. 15. for the aforesaid reasons, i am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and the second respondent is not justified in refusing employment ..... give employment to her when she reported to duty after giving birth to child. according to her, the action of the second respondent is opposed to the provisions of the maternity benefit act, 1961 and also the decision of the apex court in municipal corporation of delhi v. female workers (muster roll) and another (2000) 3 scc 224). 4. the second ..... upto 31.12.1997. thus the petitioner rendered service for more than 80 days when she sought for maternity leave. the petitioner is entitled to maternity leave under the act for twelve weeks. there is also prohibition under section 12 of the maternity benefit act, 1961 for dismissing an employee for absence during pregnancy. 13. the apex court in the decision in municipal corporation .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1999(81)FLR639]; (1999)ILLJ180Mad; (1998)IIIMLJ315
..... respondent.4. mr. p. ibrahim kalifulla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner management, after taking me through the relevant provisions of the maternity benefit act, 1961 has raised the following contentions:(i) inasmuch as the maternity benefit act has treated delivery and miscarriage on the same footing, there is no justification to treat miscarriage on better terms than delivery, accordingly the ..... leave, she reported for duty. she claimed leave wages at the rate of maternity benefit for the post miscarriage period for six weeks and leave with wages for one month under the provisions of the maternity benefit act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the act was passed to regulate the employment of women in certain establishments for certain period ..... before and after child birth and to provide for maternity benefit and certain other benefits, it applies, among other establishments to plantations also.7. now ..... actual work should be calculated in the 12 months preceding the date of 'miscarriage. apart from the factual position, it is clear from the preamble of act that the maternity benefit act is a social piece of legislation. when a question of interpretation arises, it has to be decided in favour of workman since it is the commitment .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
..... the municipal corporation of delhi and the women employees (muster roll); and so read these employees immediately become entitled to all the benefits conceived under the maternity benefit act, 1961................. 26.since i have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was unjustly denied maternity leave and employment, when she reported to duty, after delivery of a child, the action of the respondents are totally illegal ..... court in municipal corporation of delhi vs. female workers (muster roll) and another [2000 (3) scc 224]. in para 27 of the said judgment, it has been held that the maternity benefit act, 1961, also covers the casual labourers. in this regard, para 27 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: 27. the provisions of the ..... . but the respondents did not choose to reply to the representations made by the petitioner. it is submitted that as per section 5(2) of the maternity benefit act, 1961 (shortly the act), a woman employee, who has rendered service more than 80 days, is entitled to maternity leave. hence, denying maternity leave from 05.05.1996 and denying employment is against the provisions of the ..... employees, who have rendered more than 80 days of service, in the 12 months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery, are entitled to maternity benefit under the act. as per section 5(3) of the act, the petitioner is entitled to twelve weeks leave with wages. 24.in these circumstances, i am not in agreement with the submissions made by the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC3182; 2008(5)CTC554; [2008(118)FLR438]; (2008)IIILLJ584SC; (2008)7MLJ490(SC); 2008(7)SCALE726; 2009(1)SLJ129(SC)
..... . : (2008)illj814sc .]46. we, however, are not oblivious of the fact that the contention as regards the applicability of the maternity benefit act, 1961 had not been raised before the high court. we will assume for the sake of arguments that the said act is not applicable. however, we intend to emphasize that the attitude on the part of the state in exercise of its ..... petitioner as to why she could not prepare well or appear at the second test. in such a situation an employee in certain establishments would be governed by the maternity benefit act, 1961. all shops and establishments were brought within the purview of the said act by act no. 61 of 1988 w.e.f. 10th january, 1989. in terms of the provisions of the said ..... parliamentary act. 44. in bombay dyeing and mfg. co. ltd. v. bombay environmental action group and ..... statutory regulation, as is well known, is subject to the provisions of a parliamentary act. regulations framed by the board of directors of the bank fail to provide for grant of maternity leave and other benefits to which a woman employee would be entitled to in terms of the maternity benefit act, 1961. a subordinate legislation, as is well known, must be made in conformity with the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1992)ILLJ603Ker
..... construction of sections 4a and 5 of the national and festival holidays act. i shall now extract the relevant provisions:'4a. power ..... under section 5(1) of the national and festival holidays act. the answer depends upon the ..... maternity benefit to respondent 3 onwards, in addition to the benefit they have already been given by the management under the kerala industrial establishments (national and festival holidays) act, 1958, for short the national and festival holidays act, is under challenge.3. the short question arising for consideration is whether an employee entitled to the benefit of maternity benefit act, 1961 is eligible to claim the benefit ..... cannot call upon an employee to come and work on the holidays if the said employee is enjoying the maternity benefit within the meaning of the maternity benefit act. a reference in this connection to section 4 of the maternity benefit act is profitable. sub-section (1) of this section provides that no employer shall knowingly employ a woman .....Tag this Judgment!