Madras High court has decided that even if number of employees is 6 Maternity benefit shall apply under MB Act.

Mgt   Glem   Brook   Estate,   Salem   vs    Plantation     Officer,  

    Anr. (2012 LLR 420)

The honorable HC has also relied upon honorable SC judgement "MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. FEMALE WORKERS
(MUSTER ROLL) AND ANOTHER [2000 (3) SCC 224]."

Maternity Benefits Act will apply to plantations: High Court

Chennai, Feb. 8: 

The State should make provision for maternity relief to women workers as it was one of directive principles of State policy enshrined in the Constitution, the Madras High Court has held.

Dismissing a writ petition by management of Glem Brook Estate, Yercaud, Salem district challenging an order dated May 31, 2007, of Inspector of Plantations, Salem, Mr Justice K. Chandru observed that special care and assistance for motherhood was one of the basic human rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Provision for maternity protection was one of the programmes, which was being furthered by ILO on a worldwide basis. In pursuance of this objective, ILO had adopted 2 Conventions No 3 and No 103 and recommendation No 95 concerning maternity.

The petitioner contended that provisions of Plantations Labour Act as also Maternity Benefits Act would not apply to the tea estate as it had never employed 10 or more workers.

Initially, the R-1 (Inspector Plantations) by order had dismissed application of R-2 (Uma Rani), a worker in petitioner-tea estate, stating that provisions of the Maternity Benefits Act would not apply. Later, however, he issued a revised order on May 31, 2007 stating that the said Act would apply. Originally, estate was divided as different divisions, but when minimum wages were introduced, authority under Section 20 had granted minimum wages for those in the estate.

The said claim was made by more than 10 workers, and amount had also been paid by estate. Hence, the R-1 rejected the stand of petitioner and directed computation of amount in favour of R-2.

The petitioner raised two contentions – authority was wrong in revising its own order. Also, the management was employing only six workers. Hence, the Act would not apply. The judge held that this court was not inclined to accept the stand of petitioner. It would not interfere with the findings of the authority.

The judge cited the apex court's judgment in the Municipal Corpn of Delhi vs Female workers (muster roll) reported in (2000) 3 SCC 224, which inter alia, said: “Since Art 42 (of Constitution) specifically speaks of ‘just and humane conditions of work' and ‘maternity relief', validity of an executive or administrative action in denying maternity benefit has to be examined on the anvil of Article 42…”.

In the light of above, the writ petition would stand dismissed, the judge held.