The Supreme Court rules that women on fixed-term contracts are entitled to full maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961—even if the leave period exceeds the contract term. A major step forward in women’s employment rights.

Introduction

In the landmark case Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of granting full maternity benefits to a contractual employee, even if her contract ends during the maternity leave period. This case sets a critical precedent regarding the application of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 to women employed on fixed-term contracts.

This ruling ensures that temporary or contractual status cannot be used as a tool to deny statutory maternity rights, promoting greater gender equality and protection of women’s workplace rights.

Facts of the Case

Dr. Kavita Yadav, a Senior Resident in Pathology at Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital (under the Government of NCT of Delhi), was appointed on a contract beginning 12 June 2014, which was extended until 11 June 2017.

She applied for 26 weeks of maternity leave starting 1 June 2017, just days before her contract was set to expire. However, her employer only granted 11 days of leave, up to the end of her tenure.

Her appeal to the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court was dismissed, prompting her to seek redress from the Supreme Court.

Legal Issue

Can a woman employee on a fixed-term contract be denied maternity leave simply because her contract ends before the completion of the leave period?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Maternity Leave as a Statutory Right:
   The Maternity Benefit Act applies equally to all women employees, whether permanent or contractual.

2. Purpose of the Act:
   The Act aims to protect the health and dignity of pregnant women; restricting its scope due to contractual tenure defeats its purpose.

3. Notional Extension of Employment:
   For the purpose of availing maternity benefits, her employment should be considered as notionally extended beyond the contract term.

4. Violation of Constitutional Rights:
   Denial of benefits based on contract expiration violates Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 15(3) (special provisions for women).

5. Precedent Cited:
   In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), 2000, even daily wage workers were granted maternity benefits.

6. Applicability of 2017 Amendment:
   The amendment enhancing maternity leave to 26 weeks must apply to all eligible women, regardless of job nature.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Fixed-Term Employment:
   Dr. Yadav’s employment legally ended on 11 June 2017. Post that, there was no employer-employee relationship.

2. No Renewal Possible:
   The contract had already run its maximum three-year term. No further renewal was legally possible.

3. No Obligation Post-Expiry:
   Maternity benefits can only be claimed during the subsistence of employment, not after its lawful termination.

4. No Gender-Based Discrimination:
   The denial was based solely on contract terms, not her gender or maternity status.

5. Support from Lower Courts:
   Both the CAT and Delhi High Court upheld their decision based on prevailing contract law.

Judgment of the Supreme Court

On 17 August 2023, a Bench comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar ruled in favor of Dr. Kavita Yadav.

Key Highlights:

• Maternity leave is a legal entitlement, not dependent on the length of employment contract.

• Introduced the concept of “notional extension”—employment is deemed to continue solely for the purpose of granting maternity benefits.

• The Act does not differentiate between permanent and contractual employees.

• Denying maternity benefits due to contract expiration amounts to gender-based discrimination, violating Articles 14 and 15(3) of the Constitution.

• The Court directed the hospital to grant Dr. Yadav full salary and maternity benefits for the entire 26-week period.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Kavita Yadav’s case marks a significant advancement in the rights of women in contractual employment. By affirming that maternity benefits cannot be denied on account of a contract’s expiration, the ruling strengthens labour rights, ensures compliance with the spirit of the Maternity Benefit Act, and prevents gender discrimination in the workplace.

This judgment now serves as a guiding precedent for both public and private sector employers, emphasizing that temporary employment should not translate into temporary rights.