In a landmark judgment championing gender justice, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has strongly criticized a major banking institution for “flexing its institutional muscles” against its female contractual employees by denying them maternity benefits.
Upholding a prior order that granted benefits to the affected workers, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed two appeals filed by the bank. The court observed that instead of accommodating and honoring motherhood, the “banking behemoth” subjected its female employees to hostile discrimination.
“To deny maternity benefits is not only to ignore this profound ‘double burden,’ but to fail entirely in our constitutional obligation to ensure a level playing field for those who literally labour to bring the next generation of citizens into existence,” the bench noted in its May 20 order.
The Dispute: A Two-Year Contract and ‘Extraordinary Leave’
The case stems from the appointments of female employees on a contractual basis for a period of two years. Under the terms of their contract, they were eligible for regularisation after this period, subject to a performance assessment.
While the initial contract did not explicitly provide for maternity leave, the bank—upon the employees’ request—granted them “extraordinary leave” instead of formal maternity leave. However, this leave was approved on the strict condition that their two-year contract would be extended by the corresponding period of the leave taken.
The employees initially accepted these terms and took the leave without objection. However, they later legally challenged their subsequent regularisation orders, which had excluded the maternity leave period from their initial two-year contractual service requirement. Because this period was excluded, their regularisation was delayed until 2021.
Constitutional Obligations and Gender Justice
In its ruling, the High Court emphasized that when maternity benefit rules are unclear or silent, they must be resolved through a lens of “beneficial construction” in favor of the employee.
The bench stated that any interpretation to the contrary would defeat the spirit of the law and directly counter the mandate of gender justice enshrined in Article 15 of the Constitution of India. The sole objective of interpreting maternity benefits, the court stressed, must be to advance the cause of female employees, not to “orchestrate their disentitlement.”
Addressing the bank’s defense, the court held that the “doctrine of acquiescence”—the argument that the employees had agreed to the terms initially—operates as an “equitable shield” and cannot be weaponized to defeat fundamental constitutional rights.
The court highlighted several constitutional provisions safeguarding women’s rights:
- Article 15: Forbids discrimination on the ground of sex.
- Article 15(3): Authorizes the state to enact special measures for women and children.
- Article 42: Directs the state to ensure just and humane working conditions alongside maternity relief.
- Article 39: Mandates equal livelihood opportunities, equal pay, and the protection of workers and children from exploitation.
To give practical “teeth” to this constitutional vision and preserve the dignity of motherhood, Parliament enacted the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, the court noted. The Act ensures that working women are neither forced to work during advanced stages of pregnancy nor deprived of their livelihoods, thereby securing full remuneration and health security for both mother and child.
Court Rejects Bank’s ‘Continuous Service’ Argument
The High Court declared the bank’s requirement of a strict, continuous two-year service period to be flawed. The bench observed that once the employees had proved their suitability, they should not have suffered disadvantage because of motherhood. It added that contractual workers do not possess equal bargaining power in such situations, as refusing the terms would have likely resulted in their termination.
Representing the appellant bank, Senior Advocate Raman Sharma and Advocate Kartikay Sharma argued that the employees were legally stopped from raising a grievance because they had initially accepted the conditions stipulated in the leave sanctions. The counsel contended that the court had failed to consider this crucial aspect and that the prior judgment deserved to be set aside.
The bank’s legal team argued that the continuous two-year service was not rendered while the employees were on leave, meaning the bank had acted strictly in accordance with its contractual terms. They further maintained that the bank had never actually “denied” maternity leave to the respondents, but had instead sanctioned it as extraordinary leave.
Additionally, the bank’s counsel raised issues regarding pay benefits. Under Circular No. 725, the bank had frozen certain pay components for employees on December 31, 2020, with the condition that these benefits would not extend to employees regularised after that date. Because the respondents were regularised in 2021 (due to the leave extension), the bank argued they were ineligible for those benefits and that the court erred in granting them retrospective benefits by treating the maternity leave as continuous service.
Rejecting these arguments, the High Court stood firm on the constitutional protection of female workers, delivering a powerful reminder to employers across India regarding the non-negotiable status of maternity rights.
