Gujarat High Court
Funasia Network Llp vs Shrimati Nupur Mehra on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4213/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4213 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
FUNASIA NETWORK LLP
Versus
SHRIMATI NUPUR MEHRA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KIRAN C MEHTA(2718) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ABHISHEK M MEHTA(3469) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
PARAM V SHAH(9473) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 26/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Param Shah waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent no.1.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by learned Labour Commissioner in Appeal No.1 of 2023 Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:20:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4213/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined dated 27.07.2023 and the order passed by learned labour officer dated 20.03.2023 directing the present petitioner to pay maternity leave benefits to the tune of Rs.3,24,000/- and Rs.1,000/- towards medical bonus. 2.1. It is the case of the present petitioner before this Court that respondent no.1 was working with the firm namely Funasia Awesong which is a proprietorship firm and she was serving as a Radio Jockey. Due to pregnancy, she applied for maternity leave from October, 2022 onwards for the period of six months and thereafter, notice was issued seeking compensation under the provision of Maternity Benefits Act claiming salary of six months at the rate of Rs.54,000 per month. Thereafter, complaint came to be filed before the learned Labour Welfare Officer, Ahmedabad and as petitioner, though after receiving notice, could not attend the proceedings which was initiated before the Labour Welfare Officer as he was out of India and thereafter, order was passed by the competent authority directing present petitioner to pay maternity benefits to the present respondent, which was challenged before the appellate authority by filing appeal being Appeal Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:20:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4213/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined No.1 of 2023 which was also dismissed and the same is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in the present petition.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.K.C.Mehta and learned advocate Mr.Param Shah for the respondent. 3.1. Learned advocate Mr.K.C.Mehta submits that both the authorities had committed error in directing the present petitioner who is Funasia Networks LLP to pay amount of benefit towards maternity leave to the present respondent. Learned advocate Mr.K.C.Mehta submits that the appointment was made under the Funasia Awesong which is the proprietorship concern having directorship of one Dhrumil Pratik Mehta however, proceedings were initiated against Funasia Network L.L.P. who is limited liability partnership firm and where the Directors are one Pratik Shantilal Mehta. Learned advocate Mr.K.C.Mehta submits that though both the entities belong to the same family, however, they were registered under different registration certificate and their business is also distinct to each other. Learned advocate Mr.K.C.Mehta submits that in addition to that, the petitioner was in Dubai at the relevant point of time Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:20:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4213/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined when the notices were issued by the authority and subsequently, he could not attend the hearing before the learned Authority and therefore, ex-parte order was passed against the present petitioner which was confirmed by the appellate authority and in that background the petitioner is required to be given one fair opportunity to adduce the evidence before the learned competent officer and thereafter, directions are required to be issued to decide afresh. Learned advocate Mr.K.C.Mehta submits that without considering the material, the learned appellate authority has dismissed the appeal therefore, impugned orders require to be set aside and application be decided afresh by the learned Labour Welfare Officer.
3.2. Per Contra learned advocate Mr.Param Shah submits that as per the information received from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Funasia Network L.L.P. was under the directorship of Mr.Pratik Shantilal Mehta and Dhrumil Pratik Mehta and their e-mail ID stated in the official website is [email protected]. Learned advocate Mr.Param Shah submits that on the said e-mail address various correspondence had taken place by Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:20:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4213/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined respondent seeking maternity leave which were responded by one Ronak Shah who was the Manager of Perfect Tax and Finance stating that as per the company policy, respondent would be entitled for one month maternity leave that also on condition that on resuming the duty she has to serve atleast for one year in the petitioner company. Learned advocate Mr.Param Shah submits that the official address stated in the website of Funasia Network LLP is of 7th floor, 704, Merlin Pentagon, Mahalaxmi Five Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad and as per the I-card issued by the Funasia Network LLP, the respondent was serving with Funasia Network LLP. Learned advocate Mr.Param Shah further submits that as per the show details, the official website address is mentioned as funasia.net. Learned advocate Mr.Param Shah submits that only to deprive the respondent from maternity leave, which is a statutory right conferred under the Constitution of India, the fake defence were raised first time before the appellate authority that both the entities are different. Learned advocate Mr.Param Shah submits that with regard to this second ground of not having strength of 10 employees which is required Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:20:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4213/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined under the Maternity Benefits Act is concerned, as per the observations made by the learned appellate authority, on visit of the Inspector, a report was prepared wherein, it is stated that petitioner company is having strength of 10 employees and name of each employee along with their designations are mentioned in the report which is submitted before the learned appellate authority. Learned advocate Mr.Param Shah submits that though order was passed by the learned appellate authority rejecting the appeal filed by the present petitioner on 27.07.2023 and though stay was not granted by this Court, till date no benefits were given to the present respondent. Learned advocate Mr.Param Shah further submits that after assigning cogent reasons learned labour Court passed impugned award and therefore, no interference is required and petition is required to be dismissed.
4. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for their respective parties and the reasons assigned by the learned authority i.e Labour Welfare Officer as well as competent authority under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 it emerges that the Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:20:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4213/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined respondent was serving as a Radio Jockey and she was given appointment by Funasia Awesong Network and it emerges from the appointment order that she was paid monthly salary of Rs.54,000/-. The communication which is part of the reply was sent to Mr.Goldie Thakore on his e-mail [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], cc to [email protected], [email protected] informing on 05.08.2022 that the respondent has conceived pregnancy of 21 weeks and therefore, she wishes to avail maternity (paid) leave for the period of six months. The said e-mail was replied by one CA Mr.Ronak Shah stating the designation as Manager of Perfect Tax and Finance on 09.08.2022 informing that as per the company policy the respondent can avail paid maternity leave for one month provided that she serves at least for one year after resuming duty. It is also informed that if she cannot serve for one year after resuming duty, maternity benefit would be withdrawn. It is also informed in the said e-mail to the respondent that if there are any querries, it can be discussed with Vaishalben. Thereafter, again correspondence has taken place of respondent and said Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:20:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4213/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Pratik Mehta, Ronak Shah, Vaishali on 10.08.2022 informing that government has a policy for every working woman in India to get maternity leave of six months (26 weeks) leaves therefore, she had again requested to sanction maternity leave. Thereafter, number of correspondences were part of the reply from which it emerges that time and again the respondent has informed to sanction the leave but the same remained unattended. At the last, on 06.10.2022 it was informed by one Swati Gupta of Perfect Tax and Finance Service that after leave deduction and working hours calculation of the respondent, the leave balance is -28 as on 31.09.2022 and therefore, -28 leave is going to be adjusted in the pay-roll cycle of that month itself. As maternity leave benefits were not given to the present respondent, therefore, the notices were issued to Funasia Network L.L.P, Pratik Mehta, Dhrumil Mehta, Vaishali Thakkar, Saumil Thakkar on 22.10.2022 informing that the benefit of maternity leave to be paid immediately and the salary which is deducted be also refunded otherwise, appropriate legal steps would be taken.
Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:20:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4213/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined 4.1. Admittedly as said notice remained unreplied.
Therefore, the application was filed under the Maternity Benefits Act being application no.350 of 2023 wherein, though notice is issued on 20.03.2023 to the present petitioner however, the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings before the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner and therefore, after relying on the reports submitted by the Inspector under the Maternity Benefit Act, the Medical Certificate issued by the registered medical practitioners, the bank statements suggesting that prior to the delivery she worked continuously for more than 80 days and the communication which was addressed to the petitioner, the learned authority has passed order on 20.03.2023 directing the present petitioner to pay amount of Rs.3,24,000/- + Rs.1,000/- towards medical bonus. The said order was upheld by the learned appellate authority. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that she was not his employee an she was employee of Funasia Awesong Network however on referring the identity card, the detail taken from the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, details of the shows which are part of the record at page 47, it Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:20:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4213/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined emerges that appointment was given under Funasia Awesong where the proprietor name is mentioned as Dhrumil Pratik Mehta who is the same proprietor/ director stated in the website details of Funasia Network LLP. Additionally, though communications/ emails were sent to Funasia Network LLP however, same was replied by the authorized person in the manner that respondent would entitle for one month maternity benefit. If the case of the petition was that the respondent was not employee of the petitioner then the reply could have been given in that line.
4.2. With regard to non attending proceedings before the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner is concerned, the only contention raised was they were out of country and therefore, though petitioner received notice but did not attend the hearing. However, to substantiate that submission no documentary evidence was placed on record and in that background the impugned order cannot be set aside as the petitioners were negligent careless and irresponsible in attending the proceedings before the learned authority. Another argument raised that strength of the employee is less than 10 therefore, Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:20:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4213/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined benefit of maternity act cannot be given to the respondent is concerned, the Inspector has visited the company and has prepared a report which was submitted along with the details of each employee with their designation stating that the strength of employee is 10 and therefore, would have applicability of the Act to the petitioner.
5. This Court refers to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Deepika Singh Vs Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors reported in (2023) 13 SCC 681 wherein, the Apex Court has held that the grant of maternity leave under 1972 Rule is intended to facilitate the continuance of women in the workplace. It is a harsh reality that but for such provisions, many women would be compelled by social circumstances to give up work on the birth of a child, if they are not granted leave and other facilitative measures. No employer can perceive child birth as detracting from the purpose of employment. Child birth has to be construed in the context of employment as a natural incident of life and hence, the provisions for maternity leave must be construed in that perspective.
Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:20:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4213/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined
6. This Court also refers the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of K.Umadevi Vs Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2025(0) AIJEL-SC 75408 wherein it is held that right to life includes all the finer graces of human civilization, thus rendering this fundamental right a repository of various human rights. Right to life also includes the right to health. Right to live with human dignity and the right to privacy are acknowledged facets of Article 21.Article 42 of the Constitution of India which is one of the directive principles of State policy mandates that the State shall make provisions for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief. Deprivation of access to reproductive healthcare or emotional and physical well- being also injures the dignity of women. It is to ensure that a working lady may overcome the state of motherhood honourably, peaceably and undeterred by the fear of being victimized for forced absence from work during pre and post natal periods. Women must be treated with honour and dignity at places where they work to earn their livelihood. It is not just motherhood but also childhood that require special attention and Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:20:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4213/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined therefore, both health of mother and child are to be kept in consideration while providing maternity leave. Concept of maternity leave is a matter of not just fair play and social justice but is also a constitutional guarantee to the women employees of this country towards fulfillment whereof the State is bound to act. 6.1. As the maternity benefit act is enacted to secure the women's right to maternity leave and to afford women with as much flexibility as possible to live an autonomous life, both as a mother and as a worker. By depriving the said benefit the petitioner has violated the constitutional right. By ignoring the purpose of the act while putting the condition to have the maternity leave for one month with condition to work for one year after resuming the duty the respondent was put in a situation where her emotional and physical well being injures.
7. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that this petition is required to be dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.50,000. The cost be deposited with the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of this order.
8. The same shall be disbursed in the favour of respondent Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:20:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4213/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined no.1 after due verification.
9. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) ARCHANA S. PILLAI Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:20:10 IST 2025