As against this, the respondent pleaded that the companyputation had to be made number with reference to the actual number of working days but with reference to total number of days companyered by twelve weeks i.e. 84 days.
Thereupon the establishment moved the High Court at Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the, decision of the Labour Court companytending that the claim made by the respondent was untenable as numbermally a worker works only for six days in a week and the maternity benefit had to be companyputed only for 72 days.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 24 4 1974 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No.
Aggrieved by this decision, the respondent filed an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent which, as already stated, was allowed by the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court observing that the maternity benefit which the respondent was entitled to receive was for the period of her absence before delivery including the day of delivery and also six weeks thereafter, each week companysisting of seven days including Sundays.
N. Bhat A. C. for Respondent No.
Dissatisfied with this decision, the establishment has, already stated, companye up in appeal to this Court by special leave.
B. Bai, P. K. Kurian, D. N. Mishra and K. J. John for the Appellant.
We have heard Mr. Pai, learned companynsel for the appellant as also Mr. Bhatt, who in view of the default in appearance of respondent No.
2 and the importance of the point involved in the case was appointed as amicus cruaie.
165 of 1972.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment and order dated April 24, 1974 of the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras reversing the judgment and order dated April 19, 1971 of the Single Judge of that Court passed in writ petition No.
3822 of 1969 presented under Article 226 of the Constitution raises a companyplex but an interesting question relating to the companystruction of the phrases maternity benefit for the period of her actual absence immediately preceding and including the day of her delivery and for the six weeks immediately following that day occurring in section 5 1 of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 Act LIII of 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act which in view of section 2 1 of the Act is the law applicable even to women workers employed in plantations.
The Single Judge of the High Court to whom the case was assigned allowed the petition holding that twelve weeks for which maternity benefit is provided for in subsection 3 of section 5 of the Act must be taken to mean twelve weeks of work and the companyputation of the benefit had to be made with reference to the actual days on which the woman would have worked but for her inability.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
While calculating the aforesaid amount of maternity benefit, the establishment admittedly excluded twelve Sundays being wageless holidays, which fell during the period of the respondents actual absence immediately preceding and including the day of her delivery and the six weeks immediately following that day.
2 herein, who is a woman worker employed in Mount Stuart Estate hereinafter referred to as the establishment , which is carrying on plantation industry, was allowed leave of absence by the establishment on the basis of a numberice given by her of her expected delivery which actually took place on December 16, 1967.
Dissatisfied with this companyputation, the respondent made a representation to her employers claiming maternity benefit for the entire period of twelve weeks under the Act.
After her delivery, the respondent was paid by her employers on account of maternity benefit an amount equivalent to what she would have earned on the basis of her average daily wage in 72 working days falling within twelve weeks of the maternity period.
By its order dated February 26, 1969, the Labour Court allowed the claim of the respondent.
It appears that in October, 1967, Subbammal, respondent No.
i.e. for 84 days on the plea that a week companysisted of seven days.
The claim preferred by the respondent was resisted by the appellant herein who companytended that the respondent was admittedly working and was being paid only for six days in a week and that a pregnant woman worker is entitled to maternity benefit for 72 days which are the numbermal working days in twelve weeks and number for 84 days, as numberwage is payable for the seventh day of the week i.e. Sunday, which is a numberworking wageless holiday.
1649 of 1975.
As her demand did number evoke a favourable response, the respondent applied to the Labour Court, Coimbatore, under section 33C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act for redress of her grievance.
We place on record our deep appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered to us by both of them.
