Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Maternity Benefit Act, 1961

11 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK BY CHAIRMAN & ANR.versusASTAMIJA DASH

2008 INSC 56330 April 2008Disposed off

Astamija Dash, a Management Trainee at Punjab National Bank, was terminated after failing to pass the bank's confirmation test despite being given three attempts and citing pregnancy‑related health issues. She claimed discrimination because another trainee, Indubala, was allowed a fourth attempt. The High Court held in

AIR INDJA ETC. ETC.versusNERGESH MEERZA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

1981 INSC 15228 August 1981Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of Air India Employees Service Regulations 46 and 47, which mandated retirement of air hostesses (AHs) at age 35, on marriage within four years of service, or on first pregnancy, and allowed the Managing Director to extend service up to age 45. The Court held that the pr

SPIC PHARMACEUTICALS DIVISIONversusAUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 48(1) OF A.P. AND ANR.

2007 INSC 23228 February 2007Disposed off

The appellants, manufacturers of pharmaceutical products, dismissed several medical representatives and the employees sought relief from the appellate authority under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988. The employers contended that the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, bein

K. UMADEVIversusGOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

2025 INSC 78123 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

K. Umadevi, a permanent teacher in the Tamil Nadu government, had two children from a first marriage before joining service and later remarried, becoming pregnant with her first child of the second marriage. She applied for maternity leave under Fundamental Rule 101(a), which limits leave to women with fewer than two s

BHUWALKA STEEL INDUS. LTD.versusBOMBAY IRON & STEEL LABOUR BO. & ANR.

2009 INSC 131817 December 2009Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the meaning of "unprotected worker" under Section 2(11) of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969. The petitioners argued that the term should be limited to casual workers not covered by other labour statutes, relying on earlie

BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHAversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

1983 INSC 20316 December 1983Disposed off

The petition, filed by a social welfare organisation, alleged that thousands of migrant workers in stone quarries and crushers in Faridabad were subjected to inhuman conditions, forced labour and bondage, violating their fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution. The Court treated the letter addre

DEEPIKA SINGHversusCENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 83416 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Deepika Singh, a nursing officer at PGIMER, married a man who had two children from a previous marriage. She applied for maternity leave for her first biological child under Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, but the authorities denied it, arguing that she already had two surviving children for

BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1991 INSC 18713 August 1991Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court entertained a writ petition under Article 32 after a letter complained of bonded labour in stone quarries of Faridabad, Haryana. It appointed commissioners and investigators to examine the working conditions and the implementation of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and related statutes.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHIversusFEMALE WORKERS (MUSTER ROLL) AND ANR.

2000 INSC 1298 March 2000Dismissed

Female workers employed on a daily‑wage muster roll by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi were denied maternity benefits that regular female employees received. The Industrial Tribunal held that these workers were entitled to the benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and directed the corporation to extend them

HUSSAN MITHU MHASVADKARversusBOMBAY IRON AND STEEL LABOUR BOARD AND ANR.

2001 INSC 4327 September 2001Dismissed

Hussan Mithu Mhasvadkar, employed as an Inspector in the Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Board, was placed on probation and terminated after 21 months. He claimed that he was a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that the Board constituted an "industry", making him entitled to the Act's protections. The La

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search