• Citation: AIR 2000 SC 1274, (2000) 3 SCC 224
• Date of Judgment: 8th March 2000
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Case Type: Special Leave Petition. (Civil) No. 12797 of 1998
• Appellant: Municipal Corporation of Delhi
• Respondent: Female Workers (muster roll) and ors
• Bench: S. Saghir Ahmad, J., and D. P. Wadhwa, J.
• Referred: Article 11 of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women, Article 42 and 43 of The Indian Constitution. Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The female worker who was on the muster roll demanded maternity leave just like a regular employee, but were denied to them because their services were not regularised. 2. Their case was supported by the Delhi Municipal Workers Union and, it was referred by the secretary (labour), Delhi Administration, to the industrial tribunal for adjudication. 3. A claim was filed by the Delhi municipal worker union stating that the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi provides employment to many employees and female workers (muster roll) and they are made to work in that capacity for years and the nature of duties and responsibilities performed by them are same as those of regular employees and the denial of the maternity benefit to the female worker on muster rolls shows a dismissive attitude of corporation.
4. The corporation contended in the written statement that the maternity benefit act does not apply to female workers on muster roll as they were engaged on daily wages.
5. On 2nd April 1996, the tribunal allowed the claim of the female workers on muster rolls and directed the corporation to provide maternity benefit to them under the maternity benefit act.
6. The corporation challenged the decision of the tribunal before the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed by a single judge on January 7, 1997.
7. Then the corporation filed letters of patent appeal to the Supreme Court, but the corporation stated that the division bench was not justified in dismissing the matter on the ground of delay.
8. Then the division bench expressed themselves on the merit of the case as the question involved in the case was important.
ISSUES
• Whether the female workers on the muster rolls are liable to claim maternity benefit under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961?
WHAT IS MUSTER ROLL WORKERS?
The meaning of muster roll refers to a register of personnel used in organised groups such as companies or factories, which record the names of individuals who are present for duty or work on a particular day or period. The muster roll is usually used to keep track of attendance, absences, and other relevant information about everyone.
CONTENTIONS
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI’S CONTENTION (PETITIONER):
• Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) contended that it does not entitle female workers on muster rolls to maternity benefit under the Maternity Benefit Act. It further stated that it does not entitle them to any benefit under Central Services (Leave) Rules.
• It also contended that they were not entitled to any benefit under the Employee’s State Insurance Act, 1948.
• Further, the learned counsel for the corporation contended that the appeal rejected by the division bench is not reasonable on the ground of delay, which has been condoned as there was only 33 days delay in filling the letters patent appeal.
FEMALE WORKER (MUSTER ROLL) CONTENTION (RESPONDENT):
• Female workers on the muster roll demanded a grant of maternity leave, which was granted to the regular employees and was denied to them as their services were not regularized.
• The union for the female workers on muster roll further contended that MCD recruits the workers, including female workers (muster rolls) against the work of continuing nature.
• It further stated that the duties performed by female workers in muster rolls are like the regular female workers, and denying the benefit shows a negative attitude of the corporation.
Contractual employees refer to such employees who are hired for a specific job. They are not deemed to be permanent staff or even addition to the permanent and regular workforce. Maternity benefits that are provided to female employees to protect their rights during pregnancy and post-childbirth. These benefits are governed by the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
The problem steam from the fact that Section 2 of the Maternity Benefit Act, which provides the applicability of the Act, does not explicitly state “employment on a contractual basis”. This implies that most of the beneficiaries under this act cannot avail themselves of the maternity benefits. Yet, there have been judicial attempts to expand the scope of the act.
APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT:
The applicability aspect of this act is divided into TWO: based on the nature and size of the establishment and based on its applicability to a woman claiming the benefits. The following establishments are bound by the provision of this act:
1. Mines;
2. Factories;
3. Plantations;
4. Establishments that put on acrobatic and other shows;
5. Shops and establishments;
6. Any business with ten or more employees who have been with the company for at least a year;
7. Any other establishment as notified by the Central or State Government.
The act will not be applicable to factories where other laws providing maternity benefits apply (such as the Employee State Insurance Act, 1948). As per Section 5(2) of the Act, any woman employee who has been employed for a continuous period of eighty days or more in the twelve months immediately preceding her date of delivery shall be entitled to the benefits under the Act.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA: Article 14 of the constitution states that no person will be denied equality before the law or equal protection of the law. So, the labour belonging to any sector is equal before the law. The bench further stated that under Article 39 of the constitution, certain policies are to be followed by the state to ensure that men and women have equal rights to livelihood and that there is equal pay for work by both men and women. The bench also states Article 42 and Article 43 of the constitution; article 42 talks about just and human conditions of work and maternity relief and that the validity of executive action on denying it will be examined based on article 42 of the constitution. Article 43 speaks about living wage etc for workers to ensure a decent standard of living.
The bench further talks about the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which aims to provide facilities and benefits to working women in a dignified manner so that they can overcome motherhood in a peaceful manner. They further talk about Article 11 of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women, which states that the state must take all appropriate measures to abolish the discrimination against women in employment.
DECISION:
• The division bench in the Honourable Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition.
• It held that principles stated in article 11 of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women must be read along with the contract of service between the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and female workers (muster rolls).
• The female workers on muster rolls become entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 regarding the Article 39 and 42 of the constitution. • Thus, the court further stated that all female workers, including female workers (muster rolls), are entitled to maternity leave 6 weeks before and after the delivery.
CONCLUSION
The conclusion is that all the workers whether Male or Female are equal in the eyes of law and are engaged on muster rolls or are regular employees. It is entitled that the female worker can take benefit under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The fundamental rights of female workers are protected by enacting maternity laws and if denied will be considered violative.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Shravani Vilas Khairkar of B. C. Thakur College of Law, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
![COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/s RELIANCE ENERGY LTD. (FORMERLY BSES LTD.) THROUGH ITS M.D. [APRIL 28, 2021].](https://legalvidhiya.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screenshot-2024-10-24-194927-360x240.png)
0 Comments