Karnataka High Court
The Management Of New Baldwin ... vs Sri. Chandana L on 19 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:33566
WP No. 11852 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.11852 OF 2020 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF NEW BALDWIN
INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL
(SRI SATHYANARAYANA EDUCATION TRUST)
SY. NO.128, BUDIGERE CROSS ROAD,
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ROAD,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI CHANDANA .L
W/O. KIRAN ARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
#383, KIRAN NILAYA,
Digitally signed GAYATHRI BADAVANE, 7TH CROSS,
by SHYAMALA BASAVANAPURA MAIN ROAD,
Location: HIGH K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE LABOUR OFFICER AND INSPECTOR
APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE
MATERNITY BENEFIT ACT, 1961,
SUB-DIVSIION-3,
KARMIKA BHAVANA,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 029. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ROSHAN M.C., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:33566
WP No. 11852 of 2020
ORDER DATED 06.02.2020 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
IN CASE VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
Assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 06/02/2020, passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure - C, the Management of New Baldwin International Residential School is before this Court.
2. Heard Sri B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Roshan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt. Rashmi Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2 at lis.
3. Application was filed by respondent No.1 in Form No.G seeking direction to the management to pay a sum of Rs.1,43,500/- being the maternity leave benefits salary and medical bonus along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 01.05.2017 till the date of realization before the Labour Commissioner and Inspector appointed -3- NC: 2024:KHC:33566 WP No. 11852 of 2020 under Section 14 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (respondent No.1).
4. The claim of the applicant is that she was appointed in the respondent-management vide appointment order 03.04.2014 and has rendered continuous service without any breakage of service till 30.04.2017, the applicant went on maternity leave with effect from 01.05.2017, the applicant intimated and approached the management seeking to permit her to go on maternity leave for a period of 26 weeks in accordance with Section 3 of Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 before she went on maternity leave. As a request of the petitioner demanding and to allow and permit her to utilize 26 weeks as maternity leave instead of permitting period of three months by the management, the applicant filed application before the respondent No.1. the management filed objections to the application inter alia contending that the applicant has not rendered continuous service in the institution, and the demand of -4- NC: 2024:KHC:33566 WP No. 11852 of 2020 the applicant seeking to utilize 26 weeks maternity leave was never demanded to the management neither the applicant informed the management about the pregnancy and she has left the institution without any intimation.
5. Respondent No.1 by the impugned order allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,400/- towards maternity benefits and Rs.3,500/- towards medical bonuses totaling Rs.1,43,500/-.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1- applicant was appointed as Administration Coordinator on 16.01.2014 and later designated as Hr Executive on 13.03.2014 and she left the job on 08.02.2015 without any prior notice. It is contended that after nearly a year, she approached the management and requested the job and on humanitarian grounds, the petitioner was permitted to work and she joined the institution on 05.01.2016. it is the contention that the appointment of the applicant subsequently to the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:33566 WP No. 11852 of 2020 institution on 05.01.2016 was on humanitarian grounds and the application filed before respondent No.2 claiming maternity benefits, stating that she has rendered continuous service from 16.01.2014 to 30.04.2017 is not justified and the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is without considering the case made out by the management.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 contends that the applicant was taken back in service by the management on 05.01.2016 and she has worked in the year 2017 before going on maternity leave from 01.01.2017 to 30.04.2017 continuously without any discontinuation in her service of the establishment and as per the provisions of Sub- Section 2 of Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961,she is entitled for maternity benefit leave.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is : -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:33566 WP No. 11852 of 2020 Whether the applicant is entitled for maternity leave benefit and whether the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 warrants any interference in the present facts and circumstances of the case?
9. The claim of the petitioner before respondent No.2 is to allow her to utilize 26 weeks as maternity leave instead of three months period and she is working in the establishment from 01.01.2017 to 30.04.2017 continuously without any discontinuation, the fact remains that the applicant was taken back by the establishment on 05.01.2016 and she was continuously in the establishment from 01.01.2017 to 30.04.2017, though the management tried to contend that the applicant had stopped coming to work from 14.04.2017, no materials are forthcoming to indicate that she has stopped working from 14.04.2017, on the other hand, the material on record would indicates that she is working in the establishment after her reappointment in the year 2016 and the applicant has worked from 01.04.2017 to 30.04.2017 without any discontinuation in her service. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:33566 WP No. 11852 of 2020
10. Section 5 sub-caluse of 2 of Maternity benefits Act, reads as under:
5. Right to payment of maternity benefit. -
xxx xxx xxx (2) No woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit unless she has actually worked in an establishment of the employer from whom she claims maternity benefit, for a period of not less than eighty days in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery."
11. The applicant joined the establishment again on 05.01.2016, which fact is not in dispute and she has worked in the year 2017 from 01.01.2017 to 30.04.2017 and as per the establishment as well she has not turned up on 01.05.2017, the applicant having completed 80 days of service in the year 2017, she is entitled for maternity benefit as per Sub-Section 5 of Section 2 of the Act.
12. The claim of the applicant cannot be said to be improper or illegal and respondent No.2 has applied its -8- NC: 2024:KHC:33566 WP No. 11852 of 2020 mind and passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,43,000/-, which this Court is of the considered view that the same does not warrant any interference and accordingly, this Court pas the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) Impugned order is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE S* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28