Dismissed

Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Nov 2022WP(C)/23682/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited challenged orders granting maternity benefits to a female employee with consecutive contract renewals and a 12-day break. The court denied the writ petition, holding the impugned orders were legal and justified despite the employee not completing one year of continuous service due to the short gap.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as both the orders of the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Deputy Labour Commissioner were found to be legal and justified.

Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 23682 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶8

BY ADV R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.

¶11

2 THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD (COMPLAINT AUTHORITY UNDER MATERNITY BENEFIT ACT 1961), THOZHIL BHAVAN, CIVIL STATION ROAD, PALAKKAD HO, PALAKKAD - 678001

¶12

3 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, INSPECTOR AND LABOUR COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE NO.3, (INSPECTOR UNDER THE MATERNITY BENEFIT ACT 1961), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD . 678013 4 SMT. DEEPA M, C/O. ADITH UNNI, MRA - 33, GOVIND DHAN, CHITOOR ROAD, PALAKKAD - 678013. BY ADVS. ADV. VENUGOPAL.M.R DHANYA P.ASHOKAN(K/001671/2000) S. MUHAMMAD ALIKHAN(K/000644/2020)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 23682 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Petitioner, Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited through the instant writ petition has assailed the orders, Ext.P4 dated 24.9.2020 of the Assistant Labour Commissioner/respondent No.3 and Ext.P5 dated 18.11.2021 of the Deputy Labour Commissioner/respondent No.2 pertaining to the grant of maternity benefits to the party respondent No.4.

¶18

The petitioner Corporation, a public sector undertaking engaged in Public distribution activity of the State, engages daily wages/contract employees in respect of the Depots Super Markets and Outlets. 4^th respondent was engaged for a period of one year from 15.3.2018 as Junior Manager (Accounts) at a consolidated pay of Rs.22,500/- per month and he was posted in the Ernakulam Region. After the period of the contract employment, the 4^th respondent was disengaged as her period expired on 14.3.2019. After gap of eleven days was again re-engaged on 26.3.2019 for a period of one year ie., upto 25.3.2020 on consolidated salary of Rs.25,000/-. On 8.5.2019, respondent No.4 submitted a request for availing the maternity leave for a period of 26 weeks commencing from 13.5.2019. The said communication was duly replied by the Additional General Manger vide communication dated 30.5.2019 that the maternity leave can only be considered as leave without

¶19

¶20

WP(C) NO. 23682 OF 2022

¶21

allowance.

¶22

On 9.12.2019, respondent No.4 tendered her resignation. Petitioner received a registered notice dated 4.9.2020 on the basis of the complaint submitted by the 4^th respondent from the office of the 3^rd respondent under the provisions of Section 6 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The aforementioned complaint was duly contested and it was submitted that her engagement was not more than one year and therefore not entitled to leave under the provisions of 1961 Act. Ignoring the aforementioned provisions, the 3^rd respondent vide impugned order dated 24.9.2020 ordered to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,323/-, Ext.P4. The aforementioned order was upheld in appeal bearing No.MBA No.1/2020 which has also been dismissed vide impugned order Ext.P5.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the orders under challenge are not sustainable being arbitrary and illegal on the ground that 4 th respondent was engaged for a period of one year and after a gap of twelve days , again for one year. Thus in whole had not rendered a period more than one year, therefore, the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 are not attracted at all. In support of the aforementioned contentions, relied upon the division bench judgment of this Court Jisha P. Jayan v. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit

¶24

¶25

WP(C) NO. 23682 OF 2022

¶26

(2013 (3) KLT 533). The 4^th respondent delivered her baby on 30.5.2019 and she did not work for 80 days in the 12 months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery. The impugned order has been passed by relying upon the Government order dated 4.1.2021, Ext.P6, in light of the judgment dated 27.2.2018 rendered in W.P.(C) No.30561/2017. The said order would not be applicable as the provisions of Rule 100 Part I of the KSR would not be applicable.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the aforementioned contentions by submitting that there was only a break of 12 days less than two weeks from the previous engagement and subsequent engagements, thus, the plea of having not rendered period of one year would not be applicable. In support of the contentions relied upon the findings rendered in paragraph 9 of the judgment dated 27.2.2018.

¶28

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. The controversy with regard to the grant of the permits to the contractual employees with successive extension came to be pondered by this Court in the judgment cited (supra) dated 27.2.2018. Paragraph 9 and 10 of the judgment read thus:

¶29

The petitioners are also admittedly women employees

¶30

WP(C) NO. 23682 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

working on a contract basis under state funded projects. The benefits of enhanced maternity leave to woman employees is undoubtedly a piece of welfare legislation which is intended to give women equal opportunities in public employment. In the above view of the matter, the contention raised to the effect that the contract employees under the projects are entitled only to 90 days of maternity leave, according to me, cannot be countenanced, since it would amount to discrimination against woman employees only for the reason that they are engaged in projects in contractual capacities. The innalienable obligations of maternity should not and cannot be reason to deny equal opportunities to woman employees. This precisely would be the result of limiting maternity leave to women employees, irrespective of the nature of their employment. The further contention to the effect that the contractual appointment of the petitioners have a duration of only one year and the grant of six months paid leave would obliterate the benefit to the project of the engagement is also not tenable because the petitioners are persons who are continuing in service on the basis of successive extension of contract. The contention therefore can have no application in the instant cases. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in Mini's case (supra) the contention raised that the petitioners herein are entitled only to 90 days of maternity leave cannot be countenanced. The petitioners herein will also be entitled to maternity leave as is due to women employees under the Service Rules applicable to State and Central Government servants and to women employees under the Maternity Benefit Act,1961. In the above view of the matter, the impugned orders are set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to grant 26 weeks of maternity leave to the petitioners. Orders shall be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶33

Counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the observations rendered in paragraph 9, where the benefit of maternity had been granted to the persons who had rendered more than a period of 80 days of service in the year on the basis of successive extension of

¶34

WP(C) NO. 23682 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

the contract. The plea that the petitioner had not rendered prescribed period would not apply as there was only a gap of 12 days in the previous and subsequent employment t hus could not have been granted maternity leave only for 90 days but ought to have been granted 180 days ie., 6 months as per the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act which, in my view, is rightly being appreciated by both the courts. There is no quarrel to the declaration laid down in the judgment but concededly, in the aforementioned cited case, there was no extension of service and the employees had rendered less than one year of service. In such circumstances, it was held that the provisions of maternity Benefit Act were not attracted. The position as noticed above, is not similar to the cited case. Both the orders of the authorities Exts.P4 and P5 are perfectly legal and justified and do not c all for any interference.

Sd/-

sab

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 23682 OF 2022

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23682/2022

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

Exhibit P1	THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT DATED 15.03.2018, ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2	THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.05.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3	THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30.05.2019, ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER (PA) WITH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P4	THE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO 145/20 DATED 24.9.2020 OF 3RD RESPONDENT WITH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P5	THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN MBA -01/2020 WITH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P6	THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO. 2/2021/FIN DATED 4.1.2021

Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvaraj M. Vs the Deputy Labour Officer

Palakkad District Co-Operative Hospital and Research Centre Ltd.No.P 878 Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

P.Raju Vs Mini Antony IAS

Southern Engineering Co. Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Mohanan Pillai.K Vs Biju Prabhakar

Shini Vs State of Kerala