Skip to main content

Followers

1. B.Shah vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, AIR 1978 SC 12

 Ref : AIR 1978 SC 12


Sub:- This case is based on Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961

Facts of the case:-

1. A woman by the name of Sulbamal worked in an industry named Mount Stuart Estate which was related to planta- tion.

2. Sulbamal gave an application for maternity leave. The estimated period for delivery was 16-12-1967 and she deliv- ered the child on this very date.

3. Maternity benefit was given by way of salary for 72 work- ing days by the employer to the woman workman, but in this period Sunday being the holiday, was excluded by the employer.

4. Thus, being dissatisfied with the amount so provided, she filed an application before the employer in this regard.

5. It was demanded by the woman workman that she should be given full benefit of 12 weeks under the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which is of full 84 days, not of 72 days because Sunday is also included in it.

6. But, she was denied of the payment of full 84 days by the employer.


Trial Court:-

The Trial Court, while deciding in favour of the employer, dis- missed the suit.


Labour Court: -

The Labour Court, while allowing the application, directed the employer to make her payment for 84 days.


High Court :-

The employer preferred an appeal before the Madras High Court against this order which was allowed by the High Court, while setting aside the order of the Labour Court.


Appeal:-

The woman workman filed an appeal before the Double Bench against the order of the Single Bench of the High Court which was al- lowed by the Court.


Supreme Court :-

The employer, with a special leave, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court looking at Section 5 of the Mater- nity Benefit Act, 1961, held that Each woman employed in an industry is entitled to get in all 12 weeks leave for delivery and abortion or medical termination of preg- nancy. The employer is duty bound by it. To provide this right is mandatory and the employer is under obligation.

Thus, the leave will be in two stages. First stage will be 6 weeks prior to the actual delivery, and the second will be 6 weeks after the delivery. In this period, Sundays and other unpaid leave will also be included because no definition of a 'Week' has been given under this Act.

Therefore, a week means such a week which include Sunday. So, the day of Sunday will also be included in the counting.


Judgment: Appeal allowed

Law points :-

1. If a woman is working in an establishment, she is entitled to get maternity benefits under this Act.

2. In the counting of a week, Sunday will also be included.

3. Any woman will be entitled to get a maternity leave for a maximum period of 12 weeks.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Important Topics for Semester Exam in Environmental Law useful for LL.B Students.

  1.           State facts and the principles of law laid down in the case of Monera Mandal Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana Society vs M.P. Board of Prevention of Water Pollution, 1993 M.P.L.J.270.   2.            Power to take samples of effluents and procedure to be followed in connection therewith under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 3.            Discuss the various provisions Indian Constitution concerning Environmental Protection. What are the main features of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and the provisions of penalties and procedure for violation of provisions, rules, orders and instructions. 4.            Describe the special provisions in the case of supersession of the Central Board or the State Board constituted under the Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974. Explain in brief about the provisions regarding appeal and revision under this Act. 5.            Explain the objects and main provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollut
Post a Comment
Read more

1. A. Mackenzie vs. J S Izzak, AIR 1970 SC 1906

Ref : AIR 1970 SC 1906 Sub :- This case is based on Section 2 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Facts of the case :- 1. S.S. Dwarka is a ship whose owner is The British India Stream Navigation Limited and Mackenzie was its agent. 2. Shaikh Ibrahim Hasan was a class II seaman on this ship and who was missing from the ship. 3. It was clear from the medical log book that he had a chest pain on 13 December 1961 and he was suffering from it. 4. It was known from the medical checkup that nothing was unusual and medical officer gave him medicines and con- firmed his recovery and joining back on his duty next day. 5. It was known from the log book of the office on 16 Decem- ber 1961 that he was on the ship that day and he was seen on the bridge at 2:50 in the morning. 6. He was found missing at 6:15 in the morning. The master of the ship informed on the radio message at 7:30 in the morning that a seaman is missing between Khoramsar and Asahar and he is likely to be missing in the river.
Post a Comment
Read more