Q3.

Give 2 real life instances

The Ministry of Women and Child Development and other stakeholders has also requested to
enhance maternity benefit under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.Based on the
recommendations of ILC and requests from the various quarters and the deliberations during
the Tripartite Consultations with stakeholders, it has been decided to amend the Maternity
Benefit Act, 1961.
The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, protects the employment of women during the time of
maternity and entitles them to a full paid absence from work to take care for the child. The
amendments in 2017 seeks to increase maternity leave period to 26 weeks in all
establishments, including private sector.

Smt. Richa Shukla v. State of U.P. and ors.(2019)

The Allahabad High court’s 2019 judgement in Smt. Richa Shukla v. State of U.P. and
others was reiterated in the present case. The facts of this case are largely similar to Preeti
Singh. The employer denied maternity leave to his employee based on Section 153 of the
U.P. Financial Handbook. The court denied this contention, relying on Section 27 of the
Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, The provision stipulates that the 1961 Act would prevail over
laws inconsistent with it, irrespective of whether the inconsistent law is made before or after
it. 
Findings of the Court 
The Court relied on Smt. Richa Shukla v. State of U.P. in the given case, quoting extensively
from it.
The Court reiterated Section 5 of the Maternity Benefits Act. The provision entitles every
employer to be liable to women who avail maternity benefits i.e., paying her the average
daily wage for the period of her absence.
It also laid down that women would not be entitled to maternity benefits if they have not
worked in the employer’s establishment for at least 80 days in the past 12 months (provided
the woman immigrated to Assam, and was pregnant at the time of immigration). This was the
only limitation in this context. There was no parallel provision in the Act as the UP
Handbook. 
Most importantly, Section 27 of the Act states that provisions of the 1961 act shall override
anything inconsistent with it. Thus, the stipulations in Rule 153(1) of UP’s Financial
Handbook would be overridden by the Act.
The Court concluded that the respondent committed a patent error in relying on the Financial
Handbook. Consequently, it granted the petitioner her prayer.
Legal Impact
The Hon’ble High Court’s judgement sets a precedent for similar cases under the Working
Journalists (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. The judgement
may be relied on in future cases where Section 153 of the U.P. Financial Rules is used to
nullify maternity benefits under the Union legislation. This would be considered to be legally
unsound as Section 16 of the Working Journalists (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1955 has a similar saving clause as the Maternity Benefit Act. Thus, a denial
of maternity leave under Section 153 of the U.P. Financial Rules would not be allowed. 
Social Impact
The Allahabad High Court judgements reiterated the importance of maternity leaves.  It
denied the employer’s attempt at looking at loopholes in the law to deny women this leave,
acknowledging the special hurdles she faces because of the patriarchal society. Additionally,
it gave precedence to the Maternity Benefit Act, which aims at gender justice, instead of the
one limiting its scope and consequently denying its objective. Thus, this judgement upholds
values of equity and affirmative action, allowing women to be able to participate in the
workforce more freely. It is another tiny step to rectifying our skewed sex ratio in labour
participation of women in India. 
However, the judgement also highlights how employers try to look for loopholes out of paid
maternity leave benefits. This is a unique problem in India, as maternity benefit laws in most
other countries place the onus on the government to provide maternity benefits. This is the
case in Australia, Canada, and France. In India, the employers are to provide them. This is a
significant critique of the Maternity Benefits Act. This causes employers to keep looking for
ways to avoid complying with the provisions of the Act- the cost of paying wages during the
26 weeks and, in some facilities, the cost of maintaining a creche facility.
In many cases, employers shy away from hiring women employees to avoid this scenario. It
is estimated that around 11 Lakh to 18 Lakh jobs for women will be lost in the four years
pursuing the implementation of this act. This provision, in such cases, ends up acting to the
detriment of the objective of the act. This makes a powerful case for governments offering
Maternity Benefits, or in the least, sharing the cost with employers.
Conclusion
The judgement in Preeti Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.  (2021) makes it clear that
the provision of a minimum duration of two years between maternity leaves is not mandatory
to avail benefits. It also reiterates an important principle of constitutional law by giving
precedence to the provision that categorically lays down that it would prevail over others. 
In the future, there is a possibility that Section 153 of the U.P. Financial Rules may be
challenged in the court for being inconsistent with the provisions of the Maternity Benefit
Act. The argument of the state-level rule being inconsistent with a central law may also be
invoked.
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi, Delhi vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association
18 eligible students who all got the job offers and the placement was 100%. The chart further
shows that the minimum salary offered was Rs.3. lacs per annum and highest salary offered
to an Engineering graduate in Bio- Technology was Rs.9 lacs per annum. 10. From the
inquiry conducted by this Court as to the earning capacity of the deceased, it is held that the
earning capacity of the deceased after completing graduation course would have been Rs.4.6
lacs per annum i.e. Rs.38,333/- per month. (Emphasis Supplied) 7.4. In HDFC Ergo General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattan Kumar Dwivedi, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9874, the accident
dated 21 st July, 2008 resulted in the death of a national level sportsperson who was a student
of B. Com. (Hons.). The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.10,40,000/- by taking the earning
capacity of the deceased as MAC.APP.462/2018 Page 6 of 13 Rs.10,000/- per month which
was challenged on the ground that minimum wages should have been applied by the Claims
Tribunal. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation
of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR 2012 SC 100, this Court rejected
the application of minimum wages to such cases. Considering the brilliant record of the
student as a sportsperson, this Court determined the earning capacity of the deceased as
Rs.25,000/- per month and enhanced the compensation from Rs.10,40,000/- to
Rs.24,50,000/-. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:
The plea might be invoked to strike down the parts of the U.P. rules inconsistent with the
central law as unconstitutional.