Maternity leave cannot cost women their role or promotion, Delhi HC rules; Centre directed to frame safeguards for workplace reintegration

The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant with approximately fourteen years’ experience, was appointed by Respondent No. 2 as Manager–Accounting at a monthly salary of ₹2,60,000/-. She disclosed her pregnancy in May 2023 and was subsequently transferred to another team. She proceeded on maternity leave in December 2023 and resumed work in July 2024. Upon her return, her earlier position had been assigned to another employee, and she was placed in the Treasury Department to undertake investment accounting and currency-revaluation work. She alleged that the reassignment was substantially inferior, deprived her of managerial responsibilities, and adversely affected her professional status and promotional prospects

The petitioner also alleged that Respondent No. 2 failed to provide a functional crèche facility and that her male counterparts were promoted as Senior Managers while she was not restored to an equivalent role

Respondent No. 2 denied any demotion, asserting that the petitioner’s designation, managerial level, salary, seniority and benefits remained unchanged and that the reassignment resulted from organisational restructuring and business exigencies

During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner voluntarily resigned and joined Snap Inc. as an Accounting Manager. Consequently, the reliefs seeking reinstatement and constitution of a committee became infructuous

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a private employer for enforcement of statutory maternity protections under Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961?

Whether Section 12(1) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which prohibits variation of service conditions to a woman’s disadvantage during maternity-related absence, extends to post-maternity demotion, diminution of managerial responsibilities, loss of status, denial of promotional opportunities, or reassignment to an inferior role?

Whether a woman returning from maternity leave is entitled to restoration to her former position or to an equivalent position with substantially similar pay, status, responsibilities, authority and career prospects?

Whether the conduct of Respondent No. 2 in filling the petitioner’s former position during her maternity leave, failing to consult her, and assigning her undefined alternative work violated statutory and constitutional protections?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to monetary compensation and whether the Union Government could be directed to frame an implementation framework for maternity-related protections?

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, holding that writ jurisdiction may be invoked against a private body for enforcement of a statutory public obligation, particularly where the obligation arises independently of the contract of service

Section 12(1) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 prohibits not only dismissal during maternity-related absence but also variation “to her disadvantage” of any condition of service; read purposively with Sections 21 and 27, this protection covers substantive employment attributes such as duties, managerial authority, reporting structure, professional status and promotional prospects

Section 11-A requires establishments employing fifty or more persons to provide a crèche facility

The corresponding protection under Section 68(1) and crèche obligation under Section 67 of the Code on Social Security, 2020 reaffirm the legislative policy against maternity-based disadvantage

Articles 14, 15, 21 and 42 support equality, non-discrimination, dignity, reproductive autonomy and maternity relief

The Court relied on Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), (2000) 3 SCC 224; Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759; K. Umadevi v. State of T.N., (2025) 8 SCC 263; Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 402; and international standards under CEDAW and the ILO Maternity Protection Convention, 2000, to recognise the right to return to the same or an equivalent position without professional disadvantage

The Court held that Respondent No. 2’s own pleadings and contemporaneous communications established that the petitioner’s former position had been filled by another employee during her maternity leave and that, shortly before her return, the employer merely sought to identify “something” or “anything” with which to keep her engaged

The petitioner was neither consulted before her former role was filled nor given a reasoned written explanation or a defined equivalent position. The employer’s inconsistent explanations regarding the size of the team, the nature of the Treasury role, the alleged restructuring and the proposed enhanced role undermined its defence

Although the Court did not conclusively determine, in the writ proceedings, whether the Treasury role was objectively equivalent, it found the process and treatment inherently unfair and inconsistent with the dignity-based protection contained in Section 12

The Court also found that a non-functional crèche did not satisfy Section 11-A

Since the statutory scheme did not prescribe a specific remedy for the professional indignity, loss of status and consequential prejudice suffered, the Court considered public-law compensation appropriate under Article 226, relying on Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa

A woman returning from maternity leave is ordinarily entitled to restoration to her former post; if that post genuinely no longer exists for bona fide and demonstrable organisational reasons, she must receive an equivalent position in terms of pay, grade, status, responsibilities, managerial authority and career prospects, with prior written intimation and a reasoned response to any objection

The petitioner’s reinstatement-related reliefs were treated as infructuous because of her resignation. Respondent No. 2 was directed to pay her ₹10,00,000 as compensation and ₹1,50,000 as costs within eight weeks, failing which the amounts would carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of judgment until realisation

Respondent No. 1 was directed, under Sections 149, 150 and 154 of the Code on Social Security, 2020, to frame rules, schemes or directions for effective maternity-protection implementation—including role restoration, pregnancy-related accommodation, lactation support, functional crèche arrangements, grievance timelines, anti-retaliation safeguards and competent complaint authorities—within six months

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly