Is It Fair to Deny Maternity Benefits Based on Attendance? Understanding the 80-Day Rule

My wife was working in a company since November 2011 and left the company in March 2014. Later, within 2-3 months, she got an offer from her past employer to rejoin the organization with a better pay scale. By the time of rejoining, she was five to six months pregnant. She joined the company and worked for three months, i.e., August-September-October 2014. After that, she went on leave as she was in the high time of her pregnancy. During her three months of working, she could not attend the office every day; instead, she attended for around 60 days.

Now, at the time of claiming maternity benefits, her employer kept her waiting for three years, and now they are saying that she is not eligible to receive maternity benefits as she did not attend the office for all 80 days. However, we believe that she was with the company for all those 90 days, but they are counting it based on attendance only.

Understanding the Law on Maternity Benefits

Kindly help me understand the law, which states, "This statute is based on the expectant mother being your employee for at least 80 days in the 12 months preceding the pregnancy." I think we deserve to claim the benefits.

Maternity Benefit Eligibility

The text of the relevant provision reads as follows:

(2) No woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit unless she has actually worked in an establishment of the employer from whom she claims maternity benefit, for a period of not less than eighty days in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery.

Explanation: For the purpose of calculating under this subsection, the days on which a woman has actually worked in the establishment, the days for which she has been laid off or was on holidays declared under any law for the time being in force to be holidays with wages during the period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery shall be taken into account.

So, the requirement is 'actually worked for not less than eighty days in the establishment,' and the intervening paid holidays (i.e., weekly offs, August 15) could be reckoned.

Dear Jignesh,

As admitted by yourself:

a) Your wife was in the service of the establishment during the period from November 2011 to March 2014 and left the job once for all in March 2014.

b) The exit was of her own accord, and there was no dispute in this regard at all.

c) She then re-joined the same establishment afresh in August 2014 with a better compensation package and was in continuous service until October 2014, totaling about 92 days.

d) During this three-month stretch comprising 92 days in total, she was able to work for only around 60 days. Considering the absence of specific details regarding joining dates, intermittent leaves taken, actual working days, and holidays, it can be inferred that there were 13 Sundays and two national holidays on 15th August and 2nd October 2014, totaling 15 paid holidays. Subtracting this from 92, she should have worked for 77 days. However, she actually worked for about 60 days only, leaving around 17 days to be considered as LLOP (Leave Without Pay).

Applying the principle of beneficial interpretation of statutes, it is possible that your wife may be eligible to claim maternity benefits, and her employer may require an order from the competent authority. Therefore, my suggestion would be to file an appeal.