I don't think that there is any injustice in this matter. First of all, you are an HR person, and you should be a role model to all other employees. If you take leave on the grounds of maternity for 7 months (April to October), what will the others do? Obviously, the employer is bound to pay 84 days' pay, but from the post, we are unable to understand the length of leave before delivery. According to the Maternity Benefit Act, an employer is not bound to give benefits for more than 6 weeks before delivery. What was the reason for the extension of leave beyond 84 days in total (all-inclusive, prior to and post-delivery)?
Understanding the Maternity Benefit Act
The Maternity Benefit Act is essentially a social welfare legislation meant for women, and it is true that every employer is bound to give benefits to every woman employee, irrespective of the number of times the benefit is availed. It is also true that we have every right to get the benefits under the Act. However, nowadays, women going for maternity rarely return to work. They often extend the leave until the employer cannot grant any more extensions, at which point they resign. Personal life is important to all, and to safeguard it, they choose to leave the job. On the other hand, the employer has to wait for the employee to return. In a government setup or public sector organization, it is easy to employ a substitute/temporary employee in the leave vacancy. However, in the private sector, where it is already difficult to find permanent employees, it is unimaginable to find them for 3 or 4 months!
I reiterate that HR should be a model and understand both sides, including the employer's perspective in getting things done. This does not mean that denial of justice should be justified. Therefore, please clarify the reasons for such long leaves.
I also request the readers to understand the spirit of what I have written without reading between the lines, a common practice among many in this forum.
Regards,
Madhu.T.K