Is it legal if an employer puts restrictions on maternity benefits for up to 2 children only? There is no provision in the Maternity Benefit Act for such restrictions.
Thanks in anticipation...
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
470Thanks in anticipation...
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sir, The restriction, if any, imposed by the employer on his employees without having legal sanction, in my opinion, will be void and illegal ab initio.
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(3)
Amend(0)
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(3)Amend(0)
Dear Mehta sir, Generally state and centralngovernment put such restrictions to their employees for availing benefits. that is why the question.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You are correct as far as the restrictions imposed on government employees are concerned. Governments are entitled to impose any policy of small family norms on their employees by enacting service conditions, such as the Fundamental Rules, etc.
However, there appear to be no such restrictions concerning the Maternity Benefit Act and ESI Act, 1948. The reasons may be that these enactments affect a large number of the working population, and furthermore, by virtue of their contributions (ESI Act), they become entitled to maternity benefits. There may also be reasons that the payment of maternity benefits under these Acts has no effect on the financial resources of the governments. However, in respect of "Confinement Expenses" (which are paid by ESIC under Rule 56-A of ESI (Central) Rules, 1950), which are paid to insured women and the wives of insured persons, there are restrictions of "two confinements only."
If in the future the legislature wants to put any restrictions in the above Acts, then certainly it will be on par with the facilities available to government employees. However, in that case, such restrictions may have the force of law.
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(3)
Amend(0)
However, there appear to be no such restrictions concerning the Maternity Benefit Act and ESI Act, 1948. The reasons may be that these enactments affect a large number of the working population, and furthermore, by virtue of their contributions (ESI Act), they become entitled to maternity benefits. There may also be reasons that the payment of maternity benefits under these Acts has no effect on the financial resources of the governments. However, in respect of "Confinement Expenses" (which are paid by ESIC under Rule 56-A of ESI (Central) Rules, 1950), which are paid to insured women and the wives of insured persons, there are restrictions of "two confinements only."
If in the future the legislature wants to put any restrictions in the above Acts, then certainly it will be on par with the facilities available to government employees. However, in that case, such restrictions may have the force of law.
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(3)Amend(0)
The matter is one of the many important provisions of law that persons in the HR field should know with an analytical approach to appreciate the reality vis-à-vis the implementation of one's own HR policy, the Maternity Act, and the general health of the women involved. No one will doubt that women are the most affected during pregnancy, pre-natal, post-natal, and thereafter. Any restrictions or curtailments in passing on maternity benefits to her naturally affect her very badly, regardless of the basis for imposing such curtailments. There are multiple factors that arise in implementing these restrictions and curtailments, which should be read with respect to the provisions of the Maternity Act (MA) and the Employees' State Insurance (ESI) Act:
1. What are the norms, and how do they account for restrictions vis-à-vis the laws?
2. Is it based on the number of confinements or the number of children she bears/delivers?
3. Is it limited to the payment of maternity benefits only, or does it include other important provisions regarding maternity leave, child care relaxations, fighting malnourishment, the health of the mother, and
4. Her relevance in bringing up the surviving children?
5. And job security of the mother in certain specified employments/establishments, and so on.
I wish to quote/refer to the judgment of the Madras High Court (2009) in the matter of extending maternity benefits passed by Learned Mr. Justice (Rtd) K. Chandru, whom I admire as one of the very few judges of our generation who meant justice, and it should also be speedy. He touched upon many relevant provisions from various acts in this judgment. I failed to cull out some of his views to fit them here to make this short, but every word of his is apt, and hence his shorter version of the judgment is attached for our members to appreciate his views on the matter. Furthermore, I also extracted and quoted relevant portions from another judgment of the Supreme Court (though related to women casual labor).
Going by these references, I only wish to say it’s not justifiable to discriminate against women based on the status of employment, the number of confinements and children, or the place of posting, etc., in the matter of extending maternity benefits, including the grant of leave and monetary issues, post-natal difficulties, child and mother care, etc.
Regards.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
1. What are the norms, and how do they account for restrictions vis-à-vis the laws?
2. Is it based on the number of confinements or the number of children she bears/delivers?
3. Is it limited to the payment of maternity benefits only, or does it include other important provisions regarding maternity leave, child care relaxations, fighting malnourishment, the health of the mother, and
4. Her relevance in bringing up the surviving children?
5. And job security of the mother in certain specified employments/establishments, and so on.
I wish to quote/refer to the judgment of the Madras High Court (2009) in the matter of extending maternity benefits passed by Learned Mr. Justice (Rtd) K. Chandru, whom I admire as one of the very few judges of our generation who meant justice, and it should also be speedy. He touched upon many relevant provisions from various acts in this judgment. I failed to cull out some of his views to fit them here to make this short, but every word of his is apt, and hence his shorter version of the judgment is attached for our members to appreciate his views on the matter. Furthermore, I also extracted and quoted relevant portions from another judgment of the Supreme Court (though related to women casual labor).
Going by these references, I only wish to say it’s not justifiable to discriminate against women based on the status of employment, the number of confinements and children, or the place of posting, etc., in the matter of extending maternity benefits, including the grant of leave and monetary issues, post-natal difficulties, child and mother care, etc.
Regards.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Employee Benefits.doc
Employee Benefits.zip