Returning mothers cannot face demotion or lost career prospects: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a woman returning from maternity leave at a private company is ordinarily entitled to resume her previous position and cannot be placed at a professional disadvantage by reducing her responsibilities, managerial authority or prospects of career advancement.

Justice Sachin Datta, in a judgment delivered on August 31, held that the protection available under Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, is not limited to safeguarding continuity of employment or wages. It also encompasses the right of a woman employee to resume her employment without suffering any substantive disadvantage in her professional status, responsibilities, authority, or prospects of career advancement solely by reason of pregnancy or the availing of maternity leave.

The court clarified that if a woman's previous post is no longer available due to bona fide and demonstrable organisational reasons, she must be placed in a position as nearly equivalent as possible in terms of pay, grade, status, responsibilities, managerial authority and prospects of advancement.

The ruling came on a petition filed by chartered accountant Rakhi Bisht, who alleged that she was sidelined by a private company after returning from maternity leave. Bisht, who had around 14 years of professional experience, went on maternity leave in December 2023 while working as an accounting manager and supervising a team. She resumed work in July 2024.

Advocate Parul Singh, representing Bisht, alleged that upon her return, Bisht was told that her earlier position was no longer available and that she had been assigned to the treasury department. According to the petition, the new role was substantially inferior and involved no staff reporting to her. It was also alleged that male colleagues had been promoted to senior manager during her absence.

The employer denied that she had been demoted, pointing out that her salary, designation and seniority remained unchanged. It said the treasury assignment was a managerial role commensurate with her experience and was necessitated by organisational changes.

The court rejected the company's contention that the dispute concerned a private contract of employment and could not be examined in a writ petition. The court observed that Bisht was not seeking enforcement of any term of her employment contract but of Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, which imposes an obligation on every employer to whom the Act applies and which remains unaffected by the terms of the employment contract between the parties.

Justice Datta further held that a woman seeking an adjustment in her duties, working hours, workplace or role because of post-maternity circumstances should not be treated as having waived her statutory protection. Such an arrangement cannot be held against her in appraisal or promotion.

The court also directed the central government to frame rules or schemes, or issue directions, within six months on pregnancy-related workplace accommodation, protection of role and status after maternity leave, lactation support, creche functionality, grievance redressal and protection against retaliation.

In Bisht's case, the court found that her earlier post had been filled during her maternity leave without informing or consulting her. Since she had voluntarily resigned from the company and joined another employer, the court awarded her ₹10 lakh in compensation and ₹1.5 lakh in costs.