Pregnancy is a transformative and cherished phase in a woman’s life, symbolizing hope, creation, and the continuation of humanity. However, for many working women in India, this period is marred by workplace challenges, including discriminatory practices such as termination due to pregnancy. Such actions not only violate statutory protections but also undermine the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India.
There are many cases where women employees directly or indirectly face termination of their services after disclosing their expected pregnancies or motherhood. Women employees must know the provisions and applicability of mandatory constitutional spirit that binds the Company or Corporation running in the Nation.
Legal Framework: Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and Constitutional Protections
The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as amended in 2017, is designed to protect women employees during pregnancy and post-natal periods. The Act ensures job security, financial stability, and workplace accommodations, recognizing the unique challenges of motherhood. Key provisions of the Act relevant to cases of pregnancy-based termination include:
Prohibition of Termination (Section 12): Section 12(2)(a) explicitly prohibits the discharge or dismissal of a woman employee during or on account of her pregnancy, or while she is on maternity leave. Employers are also barred from altering service conditions to her disadvantage during this period. Violation of this provision renders a termination unlawful and discriminatory.
Entitlement to 26 Weeks of Paid Maternity Leave (Section 5): The 2017 amendment entitles every woman employee who has worked for at least 80 days in the preceding 12 months to 26 weeks of paid maternity leave, comprising 8 weeks pre-natal and 18 weeks post-natal leave. This includes the “Right to Pay,” ensuring full salary during the leave period, safeguarding financial stability for the mother and child.
Work-from-Home Option (Section 5(5)): The Act allows employers to offer work-from-home arrangements during pregnancy and post-maternity leave, subject to mutual agreement, enabling women to balance health needs with professional responsibilities.
Pre- and Post-Natal Protections (Sections 4 and 11): Employers are prohibited from assigning arduous tasks or long working hours to pregnant women 10 weeks before their expected delivery date. Additionally, no woman can be employed within six weeks post-delivery, ensuring adequate recovery time.
Overriding Effect (Section 27): The Act takes precedence over any inconsistent laws, agreements, or contracts, ensuring that maternity benefits are non-negotiable statutory rights.
The constitutional framework further bolsters these protections. Article 42 mandates the state to provide just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief, while Articles 14 (Equality), 15 (Non-Discrimination), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) guarantee equal treatment and dignity for women employees. India’s commitment to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) adopted by the UN in 1979, prohibits dismissal on grounds of pregnancy and ensures paid maternity leave.
Landmark Judicial Precedents
The judiciary has played a pivotal role in upholding these protections, interpreting the Maternity Benefit Act and constitutional provisions to safeguard women’s rights. The following Supreme Court and High Court judgments are instrumental in addressing pregnancy-based terminations:
Dr. Kavita Yadav v. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department & Ors. (2023) [(2024) 1 SCC 421]: The Supreme Court ruled that maternity benefits extend beyond the term of employment, even for contractual workers, provided the employee meets the 80-day work requirement. The Court interpreted “discharge” under Section 12(2)(a) to include the expiry of a contract, prohibiting employers from denying benefits by citing organizational decisions.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) (2000) [AIR 2000 SC 1274]: The Supreme Court extended maternity benefits to casual and temporary workers, emphasizing that such benefits are a constitutional right under Article 42, integral to a woman’s dignity and well-being. The Court condemned discriminatory practices that penalize women for motherhood, reinforcing the universal applicability of the Act.
Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981) [AIR 1981 SC 1829]: The Supreme Court struck down a regulation terminating air hostesses upon their first pregnancy, deeming it arbitrary and violative of Article 14. This landmark ruling established that pregnancy-based terminations constitute gender discrimination, a principle directly applicable to cases where termination follows pregnancy disclosure.
Neera Mathur v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (1992) [1992 AIR 392]: The Supreme Court condemned intrusive employer practices, such as requiring pregnancy disclosures during recruitment, as violations of the right to privacy under Article 21. This judgment underscores the need for gender-sensitive policies and protections against pregnancy-related discrimination.
Minakshi Choudhary v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2024) [Rajasthan High Court, September 5, 2024]: The Rajasthan High Court affirmed that maternity benefits are a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21, mandating 26 weeks of paid leave for all women employees, regardless of employment status. The Court emphasized that denying such benefits constitutes discrimination and violates constitutional guarantees.
Satakshi Mishra v. State of U.P. (2022) [Allahabad High Court]: The Allahabad High Court ruled that the Maternity Benefit Act overrides conflicting regulations, ensuring that maternity benefits are granted irrespective of organizational policies. This reinforces the Act’s precedence over internal decisions, such as department closures.
Anshu Rani v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2019) [Allahabad High Court, April 19, 2019]: The Court directed employers to grant full maternity leave with pay to all women employees, emphasizing the need for compassionate treatment during pregnancy. It also referenced CEDAW, highlighting India’s international obligation to eliminate pregnancy-based discrimination.
These judgments collectively establish that maternity benefits are non-negotiable, fundamental rights, and terminations linked to pregnancy whether directly or under the guise of organizational restructuring are unlawful and discriminatory.
Emotional and Practical Impact of Unlawful Termination
The dismissal of a pregnant employee at a crucial stage while she is into her pregnancy causes significant emotional, psychological, and financial hardship. Pregnancy is a period that requires both mental and physical stability, yet the sudden termination of employment disrupts this balance, leading to anxiety, insomnia, and a deep sense of uncertainty. The Supreme Court in Neera Mathur (1992) recognized the right to dignity during pregnancy, emphasizing that employers must foster a supportive environment.
Financially, termination jeopardizes career prospects, as most employers are reluctant to hire pregnant women, leaving the employee in a precarious position. The Maternity Benefit Act’s “Right to Pay” provision (Section 5(3)) aims to mitigate such distress by ensuring full salary during maternity leave. Denying this right, violates both statutory and constitutional protections.
Suggested Chain of Action for Affected Employees
For women employees facing termination due to pregnancy, a structured approach combining negotiation, legal recourse, and advocacy is essential. The following chain of action is recommended, tailored to the employee’s situation:
Document All Communications: Retain copies of all relevant correspondence, such as the employee’s email disclosing her pregnancy and the HR termination notice. These documents establish the suspicious timing of the termination, strengthening claims of discrimination under Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981).
Submit a Formal Appeal to the Employer: Draft a detailed letter to the HR department and management, citing the Maternity Benefit Act and judicial precedents (e.g., Dr. Kavita Yadav (2023), Minakshi Choudhary (2024)). Emphasize the emotional and financial toll, as supported by Anshu Rani (2019), and propose work-from-home options under Section 5(5).
Engage with HR for Negotiation: Request a meeting with HR and senior management to discuss reinstatement or alternative roles. Highlight the company’s legal obligations under the Act and its overriding effect (Section 27), as affirmed in Satakshi Mishra (2022). Propose a mutual agreement for work-from-home arrangements to ensure compliance with the Act while maintaining productivity.
File a Complaint with the Labour Commissioner: If the employer does not respond favorably within a reasonable timeframe (e.g., 15-30 days), file a complaint with the Labour Commissioner under Section 17 of the Maternity Benefit Act. The Commissioner can investigate the termination, direct reinstatement, and ensure payment of maternity benefits. Provide evidence of the pregnancy disclosure and termination notice to substantiate discriminatory intent.
Seek Legal Counsel: Consult a labor law attorney to draft a legal notice to the employer, citing violations of the Maternity Benefit Act and constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21. The attorney can also prepare for potential litigation, referencing Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2000) and Minakshi Choudhary (2024) to argue that maternity benefits are non-negotiable.
File a Writ Petition in High Court: If the Labour Commissioner’s intervention is inadequate, file a writ petition under Article 226 in the jurisdictional High Court, seeking enforcement of fundamental rights and statutory benefits. The courts, as seen in Anshu Rani (2019) and Minakshi Choudhary (2024), have consistently upheld maternity rights as constitutional entitlements.
Approach Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court: For confirmed employees, file a case for unfair dismissal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with the Maternity Benefit Act. Seek reinstatement, back wages, and maternity benefits, citing Dr. Kavita Yadav (2023) to argue that termination cannot override statutory rights.
Raise Awareness and Seek Support: Engage with women’s rights organizations or labor unions to advocate for your case. Publicizing the issue (while protecting personal details) through platforms like X can generate support and pressure the employer to comply, aligning with India’s CEDAW obligations.
Conclusion
The termination of a pregnant employee, after disclosing her pregnancy, is a grave violation of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and constitutional guarantees. Judicial precedents, from Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981) to Minakshi Choudhary (2024), affirm that maternity benefits are fundamental rights, not discretionary privileges. Employers cannot justify such terminations under pretexts like department closures, especially when the timing suggests discriminatory intent.
For affected employees, a proactive approach documenting evidence, appealing to the employer, and pursuing legal recourse through the Labour Commissioner, courts, or tribunals is critical. Employers must recognize their legal and moral duty to support pregnant women, ensuring a workplace that upholds dignity, equality, and humanity. By leveraging the robust legal framework and judicial support, women employees can reclaim their rights and secure a future where motherhood is celebrated, not penalized.
