MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF

DELHI VS FEMALE WORKERS

AIR 2000 C 1274
 FACTS ABOUT THE CASE

• Female workers were employed by the MCD on muster role i.e. on

daily wage basis. They raised a demand for grant of maternity leave,
available only to regular female workers.
• Their case was espoused by the Delhi Municipal Workers’ Union and
was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication
 WHAT UNION CLAIMED
‘The Union’ stated that:
1. The MCD employs large number of female workers ( on muster role) who
works in that capacity for years together.
2. The duties performed are same that of regular employees.
3. These women work tirelessly in construction projects and maintenance of
roads & are required to work even during the period of mature pregnancy or
soon after the delivery of child.
4. The Union pleaded that the female workers required the same maternity
benefits as regular female workers under the Maternity Benefit Act,1961.

5. The Corporation pleaded that the provisions under the Maternity Benefit
Act,1961 or central Civil Services (Leave were not applicable to the female
workers engaged on muster role.
 TRIBUNAL JUDGEMENT
The tribunal directed the corporation to
extend the benefits under the maternity
benefit act, 1961 to muster roll female
workers who were in the continuous service
of the corporation for 3 years or more.

The Tribunal however, concluded that the provision of the maternity Benefit Act had not
been applied to the corporation.
It further felt that the corporation had been brought under the purview of the act so
that the benefits could be extended to the women employees(>1000) of the corp.
It felt that the lacuna could be removed by the state government issuing the proviso to
section 2 of Maternity Act.
 TRIBUNAL JUDGEMENT

• The Corporation challenged this

judgement in a Writ Petition before
the Delhi High Court which was
dismissed by the single judge.

• The “Letters Patent Appeal” filed

thereafter by the corporation was
dismissed by the “Division Bench” on
the ground of Delay.
 Special Leave Petition
a) Counsel’s First Contention
since the provision of the act have not been applied to the corp. such
a direction could not have been issued by the tribunal.

JUDGEMENT
1) Anyone acquainted with constitution, would out rightly reject this contention.
2) Women have to be honored & treated with dignity at places where they work.
3) The employer must be considerate towards the facilities needed by a pregnant
women and must realize the physical difficulties, a working women would face in
performing her duties at the work place while carrying a baby in womb.
4) Maternity Benefit Act,1961, aims to provide all these facilities to a working women
in dignified manner underrated by the fear of being victimized for forced absence
during the pre-post natal period.
Special Leave Petition
b) Counsel’s Second decision
The benefits contemplated by the Maternity Benefit Act,1961,
can be extended only to workwomen in an “industry” & not
to the muster roll women employees of the municipal
corporation.
SUPREME COURT’S JUDGEMENT

International Scenario:
• The United Nations has adopted the “Convention on the elimination of all the forms
of discrimination against women.”
The principles under the convention have to be read into the contract of the service
between MCD and the women employees(muster role). Thus these employees
immediately become entitled to all the benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act,1961.

The direction issued by the Industrial Tribunal shall be complied with by the MCD by
approaching the state government also the central government for issuing necessary
notification under the proviso to S.2(1) of the maternity benefit act,1961, if has not
already issued.
The special leave petition is dismissed.
Thank you