On August 17th, the Supreme Court of India handed down a verdict highlighting that maternity benefits must be granted regardless of whether they extend beyond the confines of a contractual employment term. The court emphasized that maternity benefits can indeed extend beyond the duration of a contractual agreement. The ruling required employers to provide maternity benefits as stipulated in Sections 5 and 8 of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, with payments to be completed within a three-month timeframe.

The court's observation underlined that the statute itself envisions the continuation of benefits beyond the period of employment. The entitlement to medical benefits, as outlined in Section 5 of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, was affirmed to extend beyond the strict boundaries of employment duration.

The court cited Section 12(2(a)) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which establishes entitlement even for employees who are dismissed or discharged during pregnancy. This provision inherently allows for the extension of benefits beyond the employment term. The court underscored that the statute focuses on the entitlement to medical benefits, which can persist even after the employment period and is not restricted to the duration of employment.

Prior judicial decisions were referenced by the court, supporting the principle of extending maternity benefits, and it was emphasized that Section 27 of the Act takes precedence over other laws and agreements.

In a case against a Delhi High Court ruling, a three-judge bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar, and SVN Bhatti deliberated whether maternity benefits should apply to contractual employees even when the benefit period surpasses the contractual term. The appellant's counsel, Mr. Sourav Gupta, argued that fulfilling prerequisites under Section 5(2) of the Act should entitle contractual employees to full benefits. He invoked Section 5(3) and pointed out the Act's comprehensive scope, which covers even newborn children and extends protection beyond employment periods.

He highlighted Section 27 of the Act, asserting that it overrides agreements, emphasizing that statutory rights remain valid even after the employment contract expires.

The court sought clarity on the Maternity Benefit Act's mechanism and available remedies for women denied rightful benefits. The appellant referred to Section 17 and explained that writ petitions are generally filed in High Courts, as done in this case before the CAT and Delhi HC.

The appellant also referred to Parliamentary discussions to reinforce their stance, and Justice Bose expressed understanding of the Act's essence.

The case title is "Kavita Yadav v. Secy, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare." It involved a contractual pathology doctor at Janakpuri Hospital, Delhi, whose maternity benefits were curtailed due to contract expiration. Despite legal challenges in the CAT and Delhi High Court, the appellant's case successfully underscored the right to extended maternity benefits, irrespective of contractual periods.