Maternity Leave Doubled to 24 Weeks in India: How Will This Impact Employers and Women?

Good News for Ladies

The Indian government has finally increased the maternity leave from 12 weeks to 24 weeks, placing an additional burden on management/employers. Please be prepared to consider the benefits for women. Enclosed is the latest amendment to the Maternity Act.

Regards,

It is not passed since it involves costs from the Consolidated Fund of India. All revenues raised by the government, money borrowed, and receipts from loans given by the government flow into the Consolidated Fund of India; hence, it needs the approval of the President of India first. Without his assent, it will not be passed.

Further, it will be effective when the same is published in the official gazette.

Support for Extending Maternity Benefits to 24 Weeks

Thank you for your message. I completely support the initiative to extend maternity benefits to 24 weeks. It is essential to provide adequate time for new mothers to recover from childbirth, bond with their babies, and establish a strong foundation for their families. This extension will undoubtedly have a positive impact on the well-being of both mothers and their children. If you have any further information or updates on this development, please feel free to share.

Best regards,

Dear Saswata ji, the answer to your question is yes, I support the move to increase maternity benefits to 24 weeks. This is because:

1. A newborn baby needs care, attention, and proper nourishment from his/her mother. The overall growth of the child depends on this. The time currently given by working women to the newborn baby is not enough in my opinion. The World Health Organization also shares the same view on this.

2. Central Government women employees are given six months of maternity leave, as I understand. Then why should there be discrimination against women employees other than those in the Central Government?

However, there should be restrictions on the number of deliveries. Or at least in the case of the first delivery, the women employee should be given six months of maternity leave.

This is my view, and you may have a different view altogether.

Personally, I do not support the move! Otherwise, there should be a change in the qualifying service, which at present is 80 days in 12 months. That means a woman employee who joined for less than 3 months can get 6 months leave with salary as a right and occasionally request so many days of leave, sick and casual leaves, since we cannot make them work 'hard' while she is pregnant.

I know that many women employees do not support my views, and I can expect a tsunami of comments against my view. But this is purely my personal view, and if the Act is amended, I will be the first to apply it by granting it to my lady staff members because I follow the law and do not like to deny it to anybody. But, frankly speaking, before I sign an appointment order of a lady, I will think twice if I am not going to get the service of that lady for a year or more on the ground of maternity. This happens everywhere. When she is pregnant, her timings at the office will change, and whatever privilege she is given will be taken for granted or as a right she will take it, and after the scheduled maternity leave days, she will start asking for further leave and finally will take a decision not to come back. This is the situation in almost all organized sectors, and in such a scenario, personally, I will not vote for the change. Very sorry to say that I have no more comments on this subject!

Regards,
Madhu.T.K

I will support the move. It's good news for ladies, but there should be a change in the qualifying service. Presently, it is 80 days in 12 months; it should be at least 11 months or 1 year.

I think the move is illogical. Just because the central government gives 6 months' right, it does not mean that private companies have to provide it. The central government does not need to make money, worry about efficiency, or consider value for money. They offer 2 years of child care paid leave to be used at any time until the child is 18 years old. There are many women who plan to take a whole year off when the child is 17 because they didn't get to use it or didn't need it earlier. No, we can't implement this in the private sector.

If this is passed, the private sector will simply stop employing women unless absolutely necessary. This would be detrimental to the economy and the potential development of women in general.

The western economies are facing a shortage of workers and are compelled to provide these benefits. The government finances it. Well, then let all women be under ESIC regardless of salary level. Let ESIC cover the cost of maternity leave. I would support 12 months instead of 12 weeks then.

1. It is reported that the said private member's bill is still pending in Parliament.

2. A majority of such bills, if not backed and supported by the government, are generally treated as lapsed after a certain period as per the procedure adopted in legislative matters.

3. The then Government in 2012 had replied in the Lok Sabha that there was no proposal for any amendment to the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Nothing has been heard in the newspapers about the policies of the present government on the above subject. There appears to be no possibility that the present government will support the above private member's bill.

The question raised about increasing the number of entitled days of Maternity Leave from twelve weeks to twenty-four weeks is a matter of debate to be taken up in Parliament. However, from the attached Private Bill of M.P. P. Karunakaran, it may be seen that the Financial Memorandum appended to the Bill indicates that it will involve an expenditure of Rs. 500 Crore from the Consolidated Fund of India. Hence, the Lok Sabha Secretariat (Legislative Branch-II) opined that the Bill cannot be considered and passed, and therefore advised referring it to the President.

In my opinion, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 will not involve such a significant fund flow, i.e., Rs. 500 Crore from the Consolidated Fund of India, as this Act mainly applies to private sector establishments covered under the Shop & Establishment Act of the concerned state. This is because the Central Government has already adopted the recommendations of the VIth Central Pay Commission via OM dated 11/09/2008, stating that Central Government women employees are entitled to 180 days of Maternity Leave. This implies that the Government of India is already providing Maternity Leave benefits to Central Government women employees from the Consolidated Fund of India. Since private establishments do not fall under the purview of the Consolidated Fund of India, from my perspective, the Financial Memorandum attached to the Private Bill needs to be reviewed.

I also agree with the views of Mr. Koregaonkar that there should not be any discrimination among women, including women employees of Central/State Governments and women employees working in private sector establishments. Therefore, the Government of India may need to enforce equality of law for all Indian citizens. Additionally, women employees working on daily wages or as contract workers are currently deprived of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, so they should also be included in the coverage. The Government of India should consider making suitable amendments to the Act to ensure social welfare benefits for all.

I further suggest that unemployed married women should also be considered for Maternity Assistance equal to at least one month's salary of their husbands.

I hope and request that my opinions and suggestions will be favorably supported and considered by all seniors and members/visitors of citehr.

With thanks and warm regards,
Regards

In many instances, after availing of maternity leave, women employees further extend the leave or resign from their positions. It is very difficult to fill the gap during the leave period. Upon rejoining, these women employees lose their grip on the job. I am not against 6 months of leave, but this move will put the employer into a financial burden, especially in software companies where female employees outnumber male employees. In this era of tough competition, such companies may find it challenging to cope with the additional burden of paying for the proposed maternity benefits, thereby reducing their margins.

I don't wish to say YES or NO to this bill. However, we should approach this with some practicality. Let us forget for the present the government sector. What if it were made applicable to the private sector, especially all-women establishments such as garment, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, banks, primary health centers, anganwadis, research projects, colleges, schools, and other institutions, NGOs, police stations, and some places like trains, airlines, and buses? Imagine a scenario where all such women employees apply for maternity leave; these businesses and services will be temporarily closed or suspended. I think most private entrepreneurs, except trade unions, won't support this bill. Maybe a middle ground, like leave without pay or limiting it to 2 children, could be possible. Madhu's views are worth consideration. However, there seems to be a creation of more leave vacancies in those establishments.

To take it further, place it in perspective. Nowadays, we have been hearing that there is an increase in establishments asking pregnant employees to resign before going on maternity leave. Measures like this, when introduced, can create industrial relations problems. There are indications that even in the IT sector, where we have not encountered union activities thus far, efforts are being made to establish trade union-like arrangements due to the prevalence of 'hire and fire' policies in the IT sector. At a time when we are optimistic about industrial growth nowadays, these developments should not cause unwanted concerns for investors worldwide.

Hypothetically, a long time ago, I read a news item about a female convict, vaguely recalling she may have been Italian, who was continuously pregnant as a strategy to avoid serving time in jail. It was reported that she adopted this method for years, regardless of whether she actually delivered a baby or not. This news item now makes me think about similar situations. With all due respect to our female employees (incidentally, my wife and daughter are females), please do not take offense as I mention this in a lighthearted manner.

In India, an increasing number of women are opting for caesarian sections over natural deliveries, often recommended by hospitals. This trend leads to health issues for mothers, necessitating ongoing medical attention and care. This bill could be beneficial for addressing such conditions. Conversely, my sister-in-law, an obstetrician and gynecologist who has worked in Gulf countries for many years, mentioned that the rate of caesarian sections in those areas, particularly in semi-urban and rural regions, is minimal. Pregnant women in labor pain often go to nursing homes or hospitals alone, get admitted, deliver quickly under supervision, and quietly leave with their newborns without much notice. Unfortunately, in our country, similar discrete deliveries are mainly associated with unwed mothers, particularly those of baby girls.

It is relevant that working mothers receive as many days at home as possible. This is a topic that can be viewed differently from both sides. If this bill is unlikely to be taken up by the BJP government, it may not come to fruition in the near future, eliminating the need for extensive debate.

To take it further, place it in perspective, nowadays we have been hearing that there is an increase in establishments asking pregnant employees to resign before going on maternity leave. Measures like this, when introduced, can create industrial relations problems. There are indications that even in the IT sector, where union activities have not been prevalent so far, efforts are being made to establish trade union arrangements due to the 'hire and fire' policies in the IT sector.

At a time when we are optimistic about industrial growth, these developments should not cause concerns for investors worldwide. Interestingly, some time ago, I read a news item about a woman, possibly from Italy, who was consistently pregnant as a strategy to avoid serving time in jail. It was reported that she continued this practice for many years, regardless of whether she actually gave birth or not, as the jail rules in her country exempted pregnant women from incarceration. This news immediately comes to mind now.

With all due respect to our female employees (incidentally, my wife and daughter are also female), please do not take offense, I am just speaking in a light-hearted manner. In India, an increasing number of women are opting for cesarean deliveries over natural births, often recommended by hospitals. However, this trend can lead to health issues for mothers, requiring ongoing medical attention and potential complications. This bill could be beneficial in addressing such situations.

On a different note, my sister-in-law, an obstetrics and gynecology surgeon who has worked extensively in Gulf countries, mentioned that cesarean rates in those regions, particularly in semi-urban and rural areas, are minimal. Pregnant women there, experiencing labor pains, go to government-run nursing homes or hospitals alone, deliver quickly under supervision, and quietly leave with their newborns, often unnoticed. She noted the stark contrast to her experiences in India, where she performs an average of five cesareans daily. Unfortunately, in our country, similar efficiency is only seen in cases of unmarried women giving birth, particularly to girls.

It is pertinent that working mothers are given as much time as possible at home. This topic can be seen from different perspectives, and if this bill is unlikely to be considered by the BJP government, it may not progress any further without extensive debate.

Dear All, Thank you for your positive reactions! If this bill is passed, industries would incur heavy losses, and there could be discrimination against men or fathers of children. This bill is still pending.

Can anyone clarify for me if this amendment also applies to the private sector?

Regards,
Meenakshi

Thanks for your positive reactions! If this bill is passed, industries would suffer heavy losses, and there could be discrimination against men or fathers of children. This bill is still pending.

Understanding Different Perspectives

I don't understand what you see as positive and negative in this. As an employee, I welcome it, but as an employer/manager, not so much. Right? Perhaps this bill may be allowed to pass.

I have corrected the spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors in the text while ensuring proper paragraph formatting.

This is meant for the private sector since the change has already been enforced in the government sector as per the guidelines of the last pay commission reports.

Regards,
Madhu.T.K

I agree with you. The additional 3 months should be made optional, and let the company decide.

Financial Implications of Additional Leave Days

The implication is the estimated cost to the central government (direct employees only) for the additional leave days. It is not an estimate of the amount private companies will spend, including PSU and state government employees.

All employers and managers are concerned about financial losses, but no one is considering the health and concentration of female employees, which deteriorates due to returning to work just 2.5 months after giving birth. One female employee in my organization was considering quitting her job after maternity leave since a mother cannot leave her baby at just 2.5 months old when 6 months of breastfeeding is necessary. However, if maternity leave is extended to 24 weeks, women can happily return to work without needing to request an extension of leave, flexibility in timings, or resigning from their job since the baby would be ready for supplementary feeding.

Many private organizations provide 6 months of leave to their female employees because they understand the importance and necessity of it. So, why can't all employers be more employee-friendly? This change would have a very positive impact on employees, and female employees would return to work happily.

Thank you.

I welcome this move and am surprised to see the disagreements on this positive change from a few members of our HR fraternity. We, as HR professionals, need not align solely with management to worry about the financial implications of legal enactments. Instead, we should respect the need for changes in line with international practices and the expected human rights and privileges that can be extended to our working class. None of the social security benefits would have come if we only considered the financial burden on management.

Of course, there are difficulties in handling the absence of six months in an organization. A skilled woman operator cannot be easily replaced, especially for only six months, but we need to provide that opportunity, even if it comes at a higher cost. Otherwise, the reality is that women often have to quit their jobs after pregnancy and childbirth.

Still, in many parts of our country, even in cities, married women are denied jobs. Indirect questions are asked to check their family planning, and they are terminated from their jobs upon reporting their pregnancy.

We must appreciate this move and find ways to manage the absence of six months, allowing women to pass their pregnancy time without worrying about job security.

I am not sure what the level of compliance on implementation will be if this private bill is passed. However, there should be a complementary enforcing mechanism to ensure that this delayed privilege reaches our sisters.

As Mr. Madhu TK pointed out, there can be an improved qualification period, considering the total service rather than just the service with one company. We need to support this move as it demonstrates our social commitment and, of course, is a progressive step.

Regards