Contractual employees are entitled to maternity benefits notwithstanding inconsistent service agreements under Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act.

The Petitioner, an Assistant Professor (Anesthesiologist) engaged on a contractual basis since January 2022 at Seth G.S. Medical College and K.E.M. Hospital, applied for maternity leave on August 20, 2024, and October 7, 2024.

She had completed the requisite 80 days of service in the twelve months preceding her expected delivery date of November 15, 2024.

Respondent No. 2 issued an impugned communication on October 21, 2024, denying the benefits on the grounds that she was a contractual employee and that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Service Rules did not apply to her.

Despite the Respondents initially stating in court on June 23, 2025, that they agreed "in principle" to grant the benefits, they ultimately failed to process the payment.

The court primarily applied Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which mandates the payment of maternity benefits to any woman who has worked for at least 80 days in the 12 months preceding her delivery.

It relied heavily on Section 27 of the Act, which contains a non-obstante clause ensuring the Act overrides any inconsistent terms in a "contract of service".

The court followed the precedent in Archana v. State of Maharashtra (2019), which established that contractual agreements cannot override beneficial legislation.

and Kavita Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024), which held that maternity benefits accrue upon fulfilling Section 5(2) conditions and survive beyond the term of employment.

It further invoked Article 21 (Right to Life/Dignity) and Article 42 (Directive Principles regarding maternity relief) of the Constitution of India.

The court rejected the Respondents' argument that the Petitioner’s contractual agreement waived her right to statutory benefits.

The Bench observed that Section 27 of the Act explicitly prevents employers from using contracts to circumvent maternity obligations.

The court found that the Petitioner had indisputably met the 80-day work criteria under Section 5(2).

It dismissed the Respondents' allegations of "suppression" of pregnancy, noting that the Petitioner provided multiple notices under Section 6 and that, regardless, Section 6(6) provides that failure to give notice does not disentitle a woman to benefits.

The court emphasized that the Corporate Service Rules (Rule 170) cited by the Respondents actually supported the inclusion of non-permanent staff and concluded that denying such benefits to a working woman violates her fundamental right to live with dignity under Article 21.

It held that maternity benefits are a mandate of social justice and cannot be denied based on the nature of employment (contractual vs. permanent).

The Respondents were directed to pay all eligible maternity benefits to the Petitioner within six weeks of the order.

All pending interim applications were disposed of.