### Contractual Employees Are Statutorily Entitled to Maternity Benefits Notwithstanding Inconsistent Service Agreements

The Petitioner, a contractual Assistant Professor (Anesthesiologist) at Seth G.S. Medical College and K.E.M. Hospital (Respondent No. 2) under the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (Respondent No. 1), sought maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

Her contract was renewed annually from January 2022 through June 2025.

On August 20, 2024, she applied for six months of maternity leave.

By an impugned communication dated October 21, 2024, the Respondents refused the grant, stating that such benefits were not available to contractual employees as the Corporation’s Service Rules did not apply to them.

The Petitioner delivered her child on November 7, 2024.

Although the Respondents initially made statements to the Court agreeing "in principle" to process payment, they ultimately failed to comply, leading to this adjudication.

Whether a woman engaged on a contractual basis is entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, notwithstanding terms in a service agreement to the contrary.

Whether the Respondents’ denial of benefits based on the Petitioner's employment status violates the statutory mandate of the 1961 Act and the Petitioner’s fundamental rights.

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.

The Court relied on the non-obstante clause in Section 27 of the Act, which stipulates that the Act’s provisions override any inconsistent terms in any "contract of service" or other laws.

The Court also integrated the principle from *Archana v. State of Maharashtra*, which held that contractual conditions cannot override the beneficial provisions of the Act.

The principle from *Kavita Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)* was applied, establishing that maternity benefits can extend beyond the duration of a contract.

Constitutional principles under Article 21 (Right to Life/Dignity) and Article 42 (Provision for just/humane conditions of work and maternity relief) further underpinned the ruling.

The Court reasoned that the 1961 Act is a social welfare legislation intended to protect the dignity of motherhood and provides no distinction between permanent and contractual employees.

The Court found that the Petitioner satisfied the "80-day" work requirement under Section 5(2), having worked continuously since July 2024 before her leave in October 2024.

It rejected the Respondents' argument that the Petitioner suppressed her pregnancy at the time of contract execution, noting that the Act does not require such disclosure and the Petitioner had provided timely notices under Section 6.

The Court emphasized that Section 27 expressly prevents an employer from using a "contract of service" to circumvent the Act.

The Court criticized the Respondents for their "volte-face" after previously admitting liability in court, characterizing the denial as a violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21.

It held that contractual employees are legally entitled to maternity benefits under the 1961 Act.

The Court directed the Respondents to pay and extend all maternity benefits to the Petitioner within six weeks of the order.

Rule was made absolute.