1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Labour Law I

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI V. FEMALE WORKERS (MUSTER ROLL) AIR 2000 SC 1274: (2000) 3 SCC 224

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI V. FEMALE WORKERS (MUSTER ROLL) AIR 2000 SC 1274: (2000) 3 SCC 224

 

FACTS

  • Female workers (muster roll), engaged by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, raised a demand for grant of maternity leave which was made available only to regular female workers but was denied to them on the ground that their services were not regularised and, therefore, they were not entitled to any maternity leave.  
  • The Tribunal, by its award dated 2-4-1996, allowed the claim of the female workers (muster roll) and 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 three years or more. 
  • The Corporation challenged this judgment in a writ petition before the Delhi High Court which was dismissed by the Single Judge on 7-1-1997. The Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 64 of 1998), filed thereafter by the Corporation was dismissed by the Division Bench on 9-3-1998 on the ground of delay

 

ISSUE

  • Whether the female workers working on muster roll should be given any maternity benefit? If so, what directions are necessary in this regard?

 

CONTENTIONS

  • Learned counsel for the Corporation contended that since the provisions of the Act have not been applied to the Corporation, such a direction could not have been issued by the Tribunal.
  • Next it was contended that the benefits contemplated by the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 can be extended only to workwomen in an “industry” and not to the muster-roll women employees of the Municipal Corporation.

 

CASES REFERRED TO

  • In Crown Aluminium Works v. Workmen [AIR 1958 SC 30] this Court observed that the Constitution of India seeks to create a democratic, welfare State and secure social and economic justice to the citizens. 
  • In K. Cotton spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India [AIR 1964 SC 737], Gajendragadkar, J., (as his Lordship then was), speaking for the Court, said: 
    • “Indeed, the concept of social justice has now become such an integral part of industrial law that it would be idle for any party to suggest that industrial adjudication can or should ignore the claims of social justice in dealing with industrial disputes. The concept of social justice is not narrow, or one-sided, or pedantic, and is not confined to industrial adjudication alone. Its sweep is comprehensive. It is founded on the basic ideal of socio-economic disparities and inequalities; nevertheless, in dealing with industrial matters, it does not adopt a doctrinaire approach and refuses to yield blindly to abstract notions, but adopts a realistic and pragmatic approach.”

 

HELD

  • The Tribunal felt that this lacuna could be removed by the State Government by issuing the necessary notification under the proviso to Section 2 of the Maternity Act. This proviso lays down as under: “Provided that the State Government may, with the approval of the Central Government, after giving not less than two months’ notice of its intention of so doing, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that all or any of the provisions of this Act shall apply also to any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise.”
  • It consequently issued a direction to the management of the Municipal Corporation, Delhi to extend the benefits of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 to such muster-roll female employees who were in continuous service of the management for three years or more and who fulfilled the conditions set out in Section 5 of the Act.
  • A just social order can be achieved only when inequalities are obliterated and everyone is provided what is legally due. Women who constitute almost half of the segment of our society have to be honoured and treated with dignity at places where they work to earn their livelihood.
  • The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 aims to provide all these facilities to a working woman in a dignified manner so that she may overcome the state of motherhood honourably, peaceably, undeterred by the fear of being victimised for forced absence during the pre-or post-natal period.
  • Now, it is to be remembered that the municipal corporations or boards have already been held to be “industry” within the meaning of “the Industrial Disputes Act”. In Budge Budge Municipality v. P.R. Mukherjee [AIR 1953 SC 58] it was observed that the municipal activity would fall within the expression “undertaking” and as such would be an industry. The decision was followed in Baroda Borough Municipality v. Workmen [AIR 1957 SC 110] in which the Court observed that those branches of work of the municipalities which could be regarded as analogous to the carrying-on of a trade or business, would be “industry” and the dispute between the municipalities and their employees would be treated as an “industrial dispute”.
  • The workmen or, for that matter, those employed on muster roll for carrying on these activities would, therefore, be “workmen” and the dispute between them and the Corporation world have to be tackled as an industrial dispute in the light of various statutory provisions of the industrial law, one of which is the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. This is the domestic scenario. Internationally, the scenario is not different.
  • On 18-12-1979, the United Nations adopted the “Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women”.
  • Article 11 of this Convention provides as under: 
    • States/parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, the same rights.
    • In order to prevent discrimination against women on the grounds of marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work, States/parties shall take appropriate measures.
    • Protective legislation relating to matters covered in this article shall be reviewed periodically in the light of scientific and technological knowledge and shall be revised, repealed or extended as necessary.”

 

  • The principles which are contained in Article 11, reproduced above, have to be read into the contract of service between the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the women employees (muster roll); and so read these employees immediately become entitled to all the benefits conceived under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. 
  • Thus the direction issued by the Industrial Tribunal shall be complied with by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi by approaching the State Government as also the Central Government for issuing necessary notification under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, if it has not already been issued. In the meantime, the benefits under the Act shall be provided to the women (muster roll) employees of the Corporation who have been working with them on daily wages. 
  • For the reasons stated above, the special leave petition is dismissed.