Introduction:

In the case of Airports Authority of India Workers Union & Anr Vs The Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Anr, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice A. S. Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain, ruled that the birth of a first child before joining service is irrelevant when considering maternity leave eligibility after joining service. The court emphasized that the objective of the Maternity Benefit Regulation under the Airports Authority of India (AAI) Regulations is to provide benefits on two occasions during the service period, not to control population growth.

Kanakavali Raja Armugam, the petitioner, married in July 1997 and had a child from the marriage. Her husband passed away in 2000, and in 2004, she received a compassionate appointment as a junior attendant with the Airports Authority of India (AAI). She remarried in 2008 and had two more children, one in 2009 and another in 2012. In 2012, when she applied for maternity leave for her third child, the AAI rejected her application, citing the 2003 Regulations, which restrict maternity leave to female employees with less than two surviving children. This led the petitioner to file a writ petition.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner argued that the 2003 Regulations should not apply to her case as her first child was born before her appointment, and she only had two children after joining AAI. She contended that the objective of maternity leave is to support women during childbirth, and the respondent’s rejection of her application was unjustified.

The respondent countered that under the 2003 Regulations, the number of children born to the petitioner was the primary consideration. Since the petitioner had more than two surviving children at the time of her third child’s birth, she was ineligible for maternity leave.

Findings of the Court:

The court observed that the 2003 Regulations allow maternity leave of 135 days twice during an employee’s service period for those with less than two surviving children. It emphasized that Article 42 of the Indian Constitution mandates the state to ensure just and humane working conditions and maternity relief, which, while not enforceable, guide the legal validity of actions concerning maternity benefits. The court noted that the right to reproduction is a fundamental aspect of privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity under Article 21.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in B. Shah Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, the court reiterated that maternity leave legislation aims to achieve social justice for women workers. It concluded that the term “two surviving children” within the 2003 Regulations refers to children born during the service period, ensuring that the employee can benefit from maternity leave twice during her career.

The court held that the petitioner’s first child, born before her employment, should not be considered for maternity leave eligibility. Since she had not taken maternity leave for her second child and applied only once during her service for her third child, she was entitled to the benefit.

The court stated, “The object of the Maternity Benefit Regulation is not to curb population but to provide benefits on two occasions during the service period.” Consequently, it ruled that the birth of the petitioner’s first child before her appointment was irrelevant to her maternity leave claim.

With these observations, the court allowed the writ petition, granting the petitioner her requested maternity leave.