The Ministry of Labour and Employment vide Official Gazette notification dated March 31, 2017, had appointed April 1, 2017, as the date from which the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, had to come to force. Expecting mothers—working in sectors such as factory, mine, plantation, shops, establishment etc—can now avail of paid maternity leave from the existing 12 weeks to 26 weeks. Women can take leave from eight weeks ahead of the expected delivery date, and 18 weeks post the child’s birth. For women expecting after two children, the span of paid maternity leave shall be 12 weeks.
Can India, where bare sustenance for many is still an arduous task, afford 26 weeks’ maternity leave? With the current financial capacities, would mid- and lower-level organisations be able to cope with this change? Top posts may not be much affected but what about the hiring hurdle for blue-collar and pink-collar jobs such as secretarial, accounts, executives, managers clerks, sales, manual etc?
Meeting child nutrition and women’s well-being as well as interest of economics are equally essential. Several blue-chip companies had already increased their maternity leave even prior to the Act’s amendment, thus forcing competitors to follow suit in order to hire better brains. But making it mandatory for all organisations, irrespective of their potential, may ultimately become a stumbling block in the employment of the fairer sex.
Current provisions which make women entitled to more than half a year of paid leave for each of two childbirths, and 12 weeks for additional childbirth after merely working for 80 days, are bound to burden the economy apart from hindering women’s recruitment. This is apart from the gross misuse of fabricated pregnancy certificates. What to talk about abuse of provisions such as child care leaves, especially in public sector, which are sometimes used for personal works such as home construction and others.
The suggestion is to follow the middle path by adding a couple of weeks’ paid leave to the erstwhile 12-week provision. Over and above this, there can be unpaid leave of a few more months. Companies during this period may hire fixed-term employees as substitutes. Provision be made that as soon as the woman employee rejoins, the contract of the fixed-term employee would automatically get terminated. The provision of minimum working of merely 80 days for availing the benefits, too, needs a review.
While the amendment promulgated is offering Scandinavian standards for working women in systematic sectors, practical application of the same is, of course, a mirage for many companies. Interest of rural areas and unorganised sectors such as construction, agriculture, casual labourers etc should not be ignored. Pragmatic framing of provisions and spreading awareness of even the basic existing provisions are an exigency. Appropriate utilisation of hundreds of crores lying in government coffers in the name of workers’ welfare, compliance of provision such as créches provided under the Factories Act, 1948, the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996, and the recently amended Maternity Benefit Act, 2016, too, need a serious check.
Also, schemes and provisions should be framed for maternity needs of self-employed women such as lawyers, doctors and other professionals as well as shopkeepers, hawkers, vendors etc. Provision should be made for mandatory appointment of women employees in the hiring committees.
We are grateful to the concerned ministry for so vigorously pursuing women and child development. Though earnest efforts are required for its execution and awareness which India most unfortunately lacks!
Raavi Birbal
Advocate, Supreme Court of India
raavibirbal@gmail.com