National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) vs National Commission for Women

(NCW) – Maternity Benefits Case

The case of National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) vs. National Commission for Women (NCW) brought an important issue to the forefront: whether a woman employee, working under a contractual agreement, is entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.This case is significant as it discusses the legal rights of women in the workplace, especially concerning maternity leave, and clarifies how such rights apply to both permanent and contractual employees.

Background of the Case:

The case began when an employee, referred to as the respondent in the case, was working on a contractual basis with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). During her employment, she became pregnant and requested maternity leave as per her entitlement under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.However, NHAI refused to grant her maternity leave or the related benefits, claiming that because she was a contractual employee, she wasn’t eligible for maternity benefits as she was not a permanent staff member.

The National Commission for Women (NCW) took note of this refusal and intervened in the matter. The NCW directed NHAI, through two orders issued in September 2019 and October 2019,to pay the employee the maternity benefits she was entitled to under the law. In response to this, NHAI challenged the NCW’s orders in the Delhi High Court, arguing that as a contractual employee receiving an honorarium (instead of a salary), the employee was not covered by the Maternity Benefit Act.

NHAI’s Argument

NHAI put forward several arguments in its defence:

• The employee was on a contractual basis and was paid an honorarium, which, according to NHAI, meant she wasn’t an “employee” in the traditional sense. NHAI argued that there was no employer-employee relationship under the terms of her contract, and therefore, she shouldn’t be entitled to the maternity benefits.
• The terms of her contractual agreement only allowed her a few days of paid leave, but didn’t mention maternity leave or the benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act.
• According to NHAI, the Maternity Benefit Act only applied to permanent employees who received a salary, not to temporary or contractual workers.

NCW’s Intervention

The National Commission for Women (NCW), an official body created to protect and promote the rights of women, took the position that the employee should receive her maternity benefits under the law. The NCW issued orders directing NHAI to grant the maternity leave and pay the benefits as required by the Maternity Benefit Act. They believed that the employee, regardless of her contractual status, was entitled to these benefits due to the protective nature of the law.

The Delhi High Court’s Judgment

The case was brought before the Delhi High Court, where the court examined both the arguments of NHAI and the intervention of the NCW. The key issues the court had to decide were:

1. Whether a contractual employee is entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and
2. Whether the NCW had the authority to direct NHAI to pay the maternity benefits.

The Delhi High Court, delivered a significant judgment in favour of the employee and upheld the decisions made by the NCW. Here’s why:

1. Maternity Benefits for All Women Employees: The court stated that the Maternity Benefit Act is a social welfare legislation designed to protect the rights of women employees. The law is not just for permanent employees but also extends to contractual workers. The court emphasized that women should not be penalized for becoming pregnant or taking time off for maternity, regardless of their employment status.
2. Employer's Obligation: The court pointed out that the NHAI had failed to comply with the guidelines set under the law. The Maternity Benefit Act provides for paid leave and benefits to ensure that women are supported during their pregnancy and childbirth. The court made it clear that the nature of the employment (contractual or permanent) should not be a reason to deny a woman her rights under this act.
3. Social Welfare Nature of the Law: The court recognized that maternity benefits are afundamental right for women in the workplace, especially in a society where women often face challenges in balancing work and family life. Denying maternity benefits would go against the purpose of the law, which is to protect women's dignity and health during and after pregnancy.
4. Authority of NCW: The court also confirmed that the National Commission for Women (NCW) has the authority to investigate complaints related to women’s rights violations. In this case, the NCW rightly intervened and issued directions to ensure that the law was followed by NHAI.

Key Points to Remember

1. Maternity Benefits Apply to Contractual Employees: The Maternity Benefit Act applies to both permanent and contractual employees. If a woman is working under a contract that does not specifically exclude maternity benefits, she is still entitled to them.
2. Maternity Leave is a Legal Right: The case makes it clear that maternity leave and benefits are legal rights that cannot be denied based on a woman's employment status. Employers must comply with the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act.
3. NCW’s Role in Protecting Women’s Rights: The National Commission for Women plays an important role in advocating for women’s rights and can intervene to ensure that laws protecting women are followed.
4. Importance of Gender Equality in the Workplace: The judgment reinforces the idea that women should not be discriminated against due to pregnancy. The Maternity Benefit Act is designed to ensure that women can have children without facing job loss or financial instability.

Conclusion:

The NHAI vs. NCW case is a judgment that strengthens the rights of women in the workplace, particularly in relation to maternity benefits. It establishes that women, whether permanent or contractual, are entitled to the same maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The case also highlights the role of the National Commission for Women (NCW) in protecting women's rights and ensuring that employers follow labour laws that promote gender equality.

This case is an important reminder for employers to treat all employees fairly, regardless of their employment status, and to comply with laws that protect workers’ rights—especially laws that protect women during pregnancy.