BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday recalled the interim order passed to stay the notification dated November 20 issued by the state government to grant a day of menstrual leave in a month for women aged between 18 and 52 years.
Justice Jyoti M, who passed the interim order at 10.45 am after hearing the two petitions filed by Bangalore Hotels’ Association and Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems Limited, Bengaluru, after hearing the petitions, recalled the order at around 1.30 pm after the Advocate General K Shashikiran Shetty requested to consider the arguments of the state before staying the notification. The matter was adjourned until Wednesday for a hearing on the interim order.
It was stated by the petitioners that depending upon the nature of work or process carried out in the industrial establishments, they are required to be registered either under the Factories Act or the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act or the Plantations Labour Act or the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, or the Motor Transport Workers Act.
All these statutes primarily regulate health, welfare and overall working conditions of the employees, including hours of work, weekly holidays, and leave with wages. That apart, clause 9 of the Model Standing Orders appended to the Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules mandates the employer to provide leave with pay as provided under the Factories Act and other holidays in accordance with law, contract, custom and usage.
Further, Clause 10 of the Model Standing Orders provides for casual leave, and a workman may be granted casual leave of absence with or without pay, not exceeding 10 days in a calendar year.
Thus, there is a comprehensive statutory framework through those statutes mandating employers to provide sufficient leave to the employees.
The notification in question is not supported by any legislative enactment. In other words, there is no specific provision in those statutes mandating employers to provide menstrual leave to female employees, and as such, the government is not empowered to direct the industrial establishments to provide menstrual leave by way of an executive order, the petitioners claimed.
The petitioners have also contended that the Labour Department, instead of leaving it to the employers to decide appropriately on granting of menstrual leave as part of their human resource policies, has unnecessarily interfered in the affairs of the employers. If at all the government wanted to introduce menstrual leave, it would have to amend the related statutes.
Even the state has issued a preliminary notification inviting objections from the stakeholders, proposing menstrual leave. Hence, the notice in question was issued in violation of principles of natural justice.
Granting such a leave is likely to cause additional financial burden, depending upon the size of the female employees and may cause serious civil consequences. Therefore, employers should be consulted before bringing such a policy, the petitioners argued.