Mumbai: Bombay HC on Friday set aside a 2024 refusal of maternity benefits to a doctor on contract at the civic-run KEM Hospital, directing the state to take note of the rise in the number of women in the workforce and to ensure a more reasonable approach going forward. It ordered that the doctor be given her maternity benefit dues in six weeks.“Fundamentally, [Maternity Benefit Act] clearly makes no distinction between a woman employee who is appointed under a contract/agreement and/or otherwise,” said a bench of Justices Riyaz Chagla and Advait Sethna. BMC argued that the doctor’s appointment “was merely a stop-gap arrangement pending the regular selection process”. HC said such submissions “fall foul of the clear mandate” of the Act. The anaesthesiologist engaged as an assistant professor on contract petitioned HC last year to challenge the hospital’s Oct 2024 refusal to grant her maternity benefits on the grounds of their unavailability to contractual employees. HC noted the rise in the number of women entering diverse workforces. “In this scenario, it is important to ensure that a woman striving for self-sufficiency and economic independence does not have to compromise on her role as a caregiver to her child.” The state is expected to be more sensitive to deserving persons, it said. “She ought not to be made to seek orders from this court, especially since the hospital in principle agreed to process payment of her maternity benefits,” said HC after hearing the doctor’s counsel, Subit Chakrabarti, and Chaitanya Chavan for BMC and the hospital. Chakrabarti said the doctor was appointed in Jan 2022 and her contract was subsequently extended till June 2025. He said she complied with the necessary service and provided evidence of birth. An agreement in 2024 said she was entitled to “holidays/vacation as available under the service rules applicable to permanent and regular employees of the corporation”. In Oct 2024, when she sought maternity leave, it was denied. She gave birth the next month.HC said the doctor was eligible for maternity benefits, having fulfilled the Act’s Section 5(2) of 80 days of work in the 12 months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery, which was Nov 15, 2024. It said it found merit in the claim that BMC’s stand, coupled with its conduct, “does interfere with the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 (protection of life and liberty)”.
