http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10

CASE NO.:

Special Leave Petition (civil) 12797 of 1998

PETITIONER:

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

RESPONDENT:

FEMALE WORKERS (MUSTER ROLL) AND AMR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/03/2000

BENCH:

S. SAGHlR AHMAD & D.P. WADHWA

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

2000 (2) SCR 171

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Female workers (muster roll), engaged by the Municipal

Corporation of Delhi (for short, 'the Corporation'), raised a demand for

grant of maternity leave which was made avialable only to regular female

workers but was denied to them on the ground that there services were not

regularised and, therefore, they were not entitled to any maternity leave.

Their case was espoused by the Delhi Municipal Workers Union (for short,

'the Union') and, consequently, the following question was referred by the

Secretary (Labour), Delhi Administration to the Industrial Tribunal for

adjudication :-

"Whether the female workers working on Muster Roll should be given any

maternity benefit? If so, what directions are necessary in this regard?"

The Union filed a statement of claim in which it was stated that Municipal

Corporation of Delhi employs a large number of persons including female

workers on muster roll and they are made to work in that capacity for years

together though they are recruited against the work of perennial nature. It

was further stated that the nature of duties and responsibilities performed

and undertaken by the muster roll employees are the same as those of the

regular employees. The women employed on muster roll, which have been

working with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for years together, have to

work very hard in construction projects and maintenance of roads including

the work of digging trenches etc. but the Corporation does not grant any

maternity benefit to female workers who are required to work even during

the period of mature pregnancy or soon after the delivery of child. It was

pleaded that the female workers required the same maternity benefits as

were enjoyed by regular female workers under the Maternity Benefit Act,

1961. The denial of these benefits exhibits a negative attitude of the

Corporation in respect of a humane problem.

The Corporation in their written statement, filed before the Industrial

Tribunal, pleaded that the provisions under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961

or Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules were not applicable to the female

workers, engaged on muster roll, as they were all engaged only on daily

wages. It was also contended that they were not entitled to any benefit

under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. It was for these reasons

that the Corporation contended that the demand of the female workers

(muster roll) for grant of maternity leave was liable to be rejected.

The Tribunal, by its Award dated 2nd of April, 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10

before the Delhi High Court which was dismissed by the Single Judge on

January 7, 1997. The Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 64 of 1998), filed

thereafter by the Corpo-ration was dismissed by the Division Bench on March

9, 1998 on the ground of delay.

Learned counsel for the Corporation contended that the Division Bench was

not justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay which ought to

have been condoned as there was only a 33 days' delay in filing the Letters

Patent Appeal which was caused on account of the opinion of different

Departments which had to be obtained before filing the Letters Patent

Appeal. Since the High Court has already exercised its discretion and has

not condoned the delay in filing the appeal, we find it difficult to enter

into that controversy and examine the reasons why the appeal was filed

before the Division Bench after the expiry of the period of limitation.

However, since the question involved in this case is important, we deem it

fit to express ourselves on the merits of the matter as we have heard the

counsel for the Corporation on merits also.

Not long ago, the place of a woman in rural areas has been traditionally

her home; but the poor illiterate women forced by sheer poverty now come

out to seek various jobs so as to overcome the economic hardship. They also

take up jobs which involve hard physical labour. The female workers who are

engaged by the Corporation on muster roll have to work at the site of

construction and repairing of roads. Their services have also been utilised

for digging of trenches. Since they are engaged on daily wages, they, in

order to earn their daily bread, work even in advance stage of pregnancy

and also soon after delivery, unmindful of detriment to their health or to

the health of the new-born. It is in this background that we have to look

to our Constitution which, in its Preamble, promises social and economic

justice. We may first look at the Fundamental Rights contained in Chapter

III of the Constitution. Article 14 provides that the State shall not deny

to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the laws

within the territory of India. Dealing with flu's Article vis-a-vis the

Labour Laws, this Court in Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd v. Workmen, AIR (1967)

SC 948=[1967] 1 SCR 652, has held that labour to whichever sector it may

belong in a particular region and in a particular industry will be treated

on equal basis. Article 15 provides that the 'State shall not discriminate

against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of

birth or any of them. Clause (3) of this Article provides as under: -

"(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any

special provision for women and children."

In Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay, AIR (1954) SC 321=[1954] SCR 930,

it was held that Article 15(3) applies both to existing and future laws.

From Part III, we may shift to Part IV of the Constitution containing

Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 38 provides that the State

shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and

protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order in which justice,

social, economic and political shall inform all the institutions of the

national life. Sub-clause (2) of this Article mandates that the State shall

strive to minimise the inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate

inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities.

Article 39 provides, inter alia, as under :

"39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State - The State

shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing -

(a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an

adequate means of livelihood;

(b) ..................

(c) ..................

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10

(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;

(e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender

age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic

necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength;

(f) ......................"#

Articles 42 and 43 provides as under :

"42 provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief -

The State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of

work and for maternity relief.

43. Living wage, etc., for workers - The State shall endeavour to secure,

by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way, to

all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage,

conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of

leisure and social and cultural opportunities and, in particular, the State

shall endeavour to promote cottage industries on an individual or co-

operative basis in rural areas."

It is in the background of the provisions contained in Article 39,

specially in Articles 42 and 43, that the claim of the respondents for

maternity benefit and the action of the petitioner in denying that benefit

to its women employees has to be scrutinised so as to determine whether the

denial of maternity benefit by the petititoner is justified in law or not.

Since Article 42 specifically speaks of "just and humane conditions of

work" and "maternity relief, the validity of an executive or administrative

action in denying maternity benefit has to be examined on the anvil of

Article 42 which, though not enforceable at law, is nevertheless available

for determining the legal efficacy of the action complained of.

The Parliament has already made the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. It is not

disputed that the benefits available under this Act have been made

available to a class of employees of the petitioner-Corporation. But the

benefit is not being made available to the women employees engaged on

muster-roll, on the ground that they are not regular employees of the

Corporation. As we shall presently see, there is no justification for

denying the benefit of this Act to casual workers or workers employed on

daily wage basis.

Section 2 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 deals with the applicability

of the Act. Section 3 contains definitions. The word "child" as defined in

Section 3(b) includes a 'still-born' child. "Delivery" as defined in

Section 3(c) means the birth of a child. "Maternity Benefit" has been

defined in Section 3(h), which means the payment referred to in sub-section

(1) of Section 5. "Woman" has been defined in Clause (o) of Section 3 which

means "a woman employed, whether directly or through any agency, for wages

in any establishment." "Wages" have been defined in Clase (h) of Section 3

which provides, inter alia, as under :

"Wages means all remuneration paid or payable in cash to a woman". Section

5 provides, inter alia, as under :

"5. Right to payment of maternity benefit - (1) Subject to the provisions

of this Act, every woman shall be entitled to, and her employer shall be

liable for, the payment of maternity benefit at the rate of the average

daily wage for the period of her actual absence, that is to say, the period

immediately preceding the day of her delivery, the actual day of her

delivery and any period immediately following that day.

Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-section, the average daily wage

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10

means the average of the woman's wages payable to her for the days on which

she has worked during the period of three calendar months immediately

preceding the date from which she absents herself on account of maternity,

the minimum rates of wages fixed or revised under the Minimum Wages Act,

1948 or ten rupees, whichever is the highest.

(2) No woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit unless she has actually

worked in an establishment of the employer from whom she claims maternity

benefit, for a period of not less than eighty days in the twelve months

immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery.

Explanation - For the purpose of claculating under this sub-section the

days on which a woman has actually worked in the establish-ment, the days

for which she has been laid off or was on holidays declared under any law

for the time being in force to be holidays with wages during the period of

twelve months immediately preced-ing the date of her expected delivery

shall be taken into account.

(3) The maximum period for which any woman shall be entitled to maternity

benefit shall be twelve weeks of which not more than six weeks shall

precede the date of her expected delivery.

The objects and reasons as set out in Govt. of India Gazette, Part II,

Section 2, dated 6.12.1960 [p-817], provide as under :

"This clause entitles a woman to receive maternity benefit at the rate of

her average daily wage subject to a minimum of seventy-five naye paise per

day for a maximum period of 12 weeks, including six weeks following the day

of her delivery. The qualifying condition is employment for 240 days in the

12 months immediately preceding the expected date of delivery, but there is

no such restriction as to entitlement in the case of an immigrant woman who

is pregnant when she first arrives in Assam."

With regard to the period of 240 days, the Select Committee remarked as

under :

"The Committee are of the view that the qualifying condition of employment

for a period of 240 days during the 12 months immediately preceding the

expected date of delivery to entitle a worker to maternity benefit is too

rigorous and the period should be reduced to 160 actual working days

inclusive of the period of 'lay-off, if any."

Section 5A provides that if the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 is

applied or becomes applicable to the establishment where a woman is

employed, such woman shall continue to be entitled to receive the maternity

benefits under this Act so long as she does not become qualified to claim

maternity benefits under Section 50 of that Act.

It may be stated that Section 50 of the Employees' State Insurance Act,

1948 provides as under :

"Maternity benefit - The qualification of an insured woman to claim

maternity benefit, the conditions subject to which such benefit may be

given, the rates and period thereof shall be such as may be prescribed by

the Central Government."

Section 5B of the Maternity Act speaks of payment of maternity benefit in

certain cases. Section 6 provides notice of claim for maternity benefit and

payment thereof. Section 8 provides that every woman entitled to maternity

benefit under this Act shall also be entitled to receive from her employer

a medical bonus of 250 rupees, if no pre-natal confinement or post-natal

care is provided by the employer free of charge.

Section 9 contemplates leave for miscarriage or medical termination of

pregnancy. Section 9A contemplates leave for tubectomy operation whereas

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10

Section 10 provides for leave for illness arising out of pregnancy,

delivery, pre-mature birth of a child or miscarriage. Section 11 provides

as under :

"11. Nursing breaks - Every woman delivered of a child who returns to duty

after such delivery shall, in addition to the interval for rest allowed to

her, be allowed in the course of her daily work two breaks of the

prescribed duration for nursing the child until the child attains the age

of fifteen months."

Section 12, which contains a very significant prohibition in regard to the

service of a woman employee, provides as under :

"12. Dismissal during absence or pregnancy -r- (1) When a woman absents

herself from work in accordance with the provisions of this Act, it shall

be unlawful for her employer to discharge or dismiss her during or on

account of such absence or to give notice of discharge or dismissal on such

a day that the notice will expire during such absence, or to vary to her

disadvantage any of the conditions of her service.

(2)(a) The discharge or dismissal of a woman at any time during her

pregnancy, if the woman but for such discharge or dismissal would have been

entitled to maternity benefit or medical bonus referred to in section 8,

shall not have the effect of depriving her of the maternity benefit or

medical bonus.

Provided that where the dismissal is for any prescribed gross misconduct,

the employer may, by order in writing communicated to the woman, deprive

her of the maternity benefit or medical bonus or both.

(b) Any woman deprived of maternity benefit or medical bonus, or both, or

discharged or dismissed during or on account of her absence from work in

accordance with the provisions of this Act, may, within sixty days from the

date on which order of such deprivation or discharge or dismissal is

communicated to her, appeal to such authority as may be prescribed, and the

decision of that authority on such appeal, whether the woman should or

should not be deprived of maternity benefit or medical bonus, or both, or

discharged or dismissed shall be final.

(c) Nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect the provisions

contained in sub-section (1).

This Section prohibits dismissal of a woman employee during or on account

of her absence on maternity leave. It ensures that the conditions of her

service would not be varied to her disadvantage during her absence.

Contravention of the provisions of this Act has been made an offence under

Section 21 of the Act which provides as under :

"21. Penalty for contravention of Act by employer - (1) If any employer

fails to pay any amount of maternity benefit to a woman entitled udner this

Act or discharges or dismisses such woman during or on account of her

absence from work in accordance with the provisions of this Act, he shall

be punishable with imprisonment which shall not be less than three months

but which may extend to one year and with fine which shall not be less than

two thousand rupees but which may extend to five thousand rupees :

Provided that the court may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in

writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a lesser term or fine only

in lieu of imprisonment.

(2) If any employee contravenes the provisions of this Act or the rules

made thereunder, he shall, if no other penalty is elsewhere provided by or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10

under this Act for such contravention, be punishable with imprisonment

which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five

thousand rupees, or with both :

Provided that where the contravention is of any provision regarding

maternity benefit or regarding payment of any other amount and such

maternity benefit or amount has not already been recovered, the court

shall, in addition, recover such maternity benefit or amount as if it were

a fine and pay the same to the person entitled thereto."

Cognizance of offences has been provided for in Section 23, which is

reproduced as under :

"23. Cognizance of offences - (1) Any aggrieved woman, an office-bearer of

a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 of which such

woman is a member or a voluntary organition registered under the Societies

Registration Act, 1860 or an Inspector, may file a complaint regarding the

commission of an offence under this Act in any court of competent

jurisdiction and no such complaint shall be filed after the expiry of one

year from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.

(2) No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate

of the First Class shall try any offence under this Act."

Section 27 deals with the effect of laws and agreements inconsistent with

this Act. Sub-section (1) provides that the provisions of this Act shall

have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in

any other law or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of

service. Sub-section (2) of this Section, however, provides that it will be

open to a woman to enter into an agreement with her employer for granting

her rights or privileges in respect of any matter which are more favourable

to her than those she would be entitled to under this Act.

The provisions of the Act which have been set out above would indicate that

they are wholly in consonance with the Directive Principles of State

Policy, as set out in Article 39 and in other Articles, specially Article

42. A woman employee, at the time of advanced pregnancy cannot be compelled

to undertake hard labour as it would be detrimental to her health and also

to the health of the foetus. It is for this reason that it is provided in

the Act that she would be entitled to maternity leave for certain periods

prior to and after delivery. We have scanned the different provisions of

the Act, but we do not find anything contained in the Act which entitles

only regular women employees to the benefit of maternity leave and not to

those who are engaged on casual basis or on muster roll on daily wage

basis.

The Industrial Tribunal, which has given an award in favour of the

respondents, has noticed that women employees have been engaged by the

Corporation on muster roll, that is to say, on daily wage basis for doing

various lands of works in projects like construction of buildings, digging

of trenches, making of roads, etc., but have been denied the benefit of

maternity leave. The Tribunal has found that though the women employees

were on muster roll and had been working for the Corporation for more than

10 years, they were not regularised. The Tribunal, however, came to the

conclusion that the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act had not been

applied to the Corporation and, therefore, it felt that there was a lacuna

in the Act. It further felt that having regard to the activities of the

Corporation, which had employed more than a thousand women employees, it

should have been brought within the purview of the Act so that the

maternity benefits contemplated by the Act could be extended to the women

employees of the Corporation. It felt that this lacuna could be removed by

the State Govt. by issuing the necessary notification under the Proviso to

Section 2 of the Maternity Act. This Proviso lays down as under:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10

"Provided that the State Government may, with the approval of the Central

Government, after giving not less than two month's 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 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.

We appreciate the efforts of the Industrial Tribunal in issuing the above

directions so as to provide the benefit of the Act to the muster roll women

employees of the Corporation. This direction is fully in consonance with

the reference made to the industrial Tribunal. The question referred for

adjudication has already been reproduced in the earlier part of the

judgment. It falls in two parts as under :

(i) Whether the female workers working on muster roll should be given any

maternity benefit?

(ii) If so, what directions are necessary in this regard.

The award made by the Industrial Tribunal completely answers the question

in both the respects.

Learned counsel for the Corporation contended that since the provi-sions of

the Act have not been applied to the Corporation, such a direction could

not have been issued by the Tribunal. This is a narrow way of looking at

the problem which essentially is human in nature and anyone acquainted with

the working of the Constitution, which aims at providing social and

economic justice to the citizens of this country, would outrightly reject

the contention. The relevance and significance of the doctrine of social

justice has, times out of number, been emphasised by this Court in several

decisions. In Messrs Crown Aluminium Works v. Their Workmen, [1958] SCR

651, 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 J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Badri Mali &

Ors., [1964] 3 SCR 724, 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, one-sided, or pedantic, and is not confined to industrial

adjudication alone. Its sweep is comprehensive. - It is founded on the

basis ideal of socio-economic equality and its aim is to assist the removal

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."

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. Whatever be the

nature of their duties, their avocation and the place where they work; they

must be provided all the facilities to which they are entitled. To become a

mother is the most natural phenomena in the life of a woman. Whatever is

needed to facilitate the birth of child to a woman who is in service, the

employer has to be considerate and sympathetic towards her and must realise

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10

the physical difficulties which a working woman would face in performing

her duties at the work place while carrying a baby in the womb or while

rearing up the child after birth. 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.

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. This

is too stale an argument to be heard. Learned counsel also forgets that

Municipal Corporation was treated to be an 'industry' and, therefore, a

reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, which answered the reference

against the Corporation, and it is this matter which is being agitated

before us.

Now, it is to be remembered that the Municipal Corporation or Boards have

already been held to be "industry" within the meaning of "Industrial

Disputes Act", in Udge Budge Municipality v. Sri. P.R. Mukherjee, (1953) 1

LLJ 195 (SC), 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. Its Workmen, (1957) 1 LLJ 8

(SC), 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". This view was reiterated in the Corporation of the City of Nagpur

v. Its Employees and Others, (I960) 1 LLJ 523 (SC). In this case, various

Departments of the Municipality were considered and certain Departments

including General Administration Department and Education Department were

held to be covered within the meaning of "industry". The Punjab and Haryana

High Court in Municipal Committee, Bhiwani v. Padam Singh and Others, 1973

Labour and Industrial Cases 1512, held that fire-brigade service,

maintained by Municipal Committee, was an "industry". But a contrary view

was taken by the Bombay High Court in Administrator of the City of Nagpur

Municipal Corporation v. Labour Court, Nagpur, 1967 Labour and Industrial

Case 107, which held that the fire-brigade service, maintained by the

Municipal Corporation, was not an "industry". We are not, in this case,

attempting to resolve the conflict between the Punjab and Haryana High

Court and the Bombay High Court but what we intend to emphasise is that

this Court has already held some of the Departments of the Municipal

Corporation to be an "industry". The High Courts have also held the running

of dispensary as also sanitary and conservancy activities to be an

"industry". (See : Sirur Municipality v. Its Workmen, (1960) 2 LLJ 657;,

Municipal Council, Washim v. Manguji Zenduji Dhamane, 1978 Labour and

Industrial Cases 881). The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Rajendranagar

Municipality v. B.V. Perraju, 1995 Labour and Industrial Cases 2102, has

held that storing and distribution of water was a systematic activity of

the Corporation which would fall within the definition of "industry".

Taking into consideration the enunciation of law as settled by this Court

as also the High Courts in various decisions referred to above, the

activity of the Delhi Municipal Corporation by which construction work is

undertaken or roads are laid or repaired or trenches are dug would fall

within the definition of "industry". 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 would 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.

Delhi is the capital of India. No other City or Corporation would be more

conscious than the City of Delhi that India is a signatory to various

International covenants and treaties. The Universal Declaration of Human

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10

Rights, adopted by the United Nations on 10th of December, 1948, set in

motion the universal thinking that human rights are supreme and ought to be

preserved at all costs. This was followed by a series of Conventions. On

18th of December, 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 :-

"Article 11

1. 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 particular;

(a) The right to work as an inalienable right of all human beings;

(b) The right to the same employment opportunities, including the

application of the same criteria for selection in matters of employment;

(c) The right to free choice of profession and employment, the right to

promotion, job security and all benefits and conditions of service and the

right to receive vocational training and retraining, including

apprenticeships, advanced vocational train-ing and recurrent training;

(d) The right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal

treatment in respect of work of equal value, as well as equality of

treatment in the evaluation of the quality of work;

(e) The right to social security, particularly in cases of retire-ment,

unemployment, sickness, invalidity and old age and other incapacity to

work, as well as the right to paid leave.

(f) The right to protection of health and to safety in working conditions,

including the safeguarding of the function of repro-duction.

2. 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 :

(a) To prohibit, subject to the imposition of sanctions, dismissal on the

grounds of pregnancy or of maternity leave and discrimi-nation in

dismissals on the basis of marital status;

(b) To introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social

benefits without loss of former employment, seniority or social allowances;

(c) To encourage the provision of the necessary supporting social services

to enable parents to combine family obligations with work responsibilities

and participation in public life, in particular through promoting the

establishment and develop-ment of a network of child-care facilities;

(d) To provide special protection to women during pregnancy in types of

work proved to be harmful to them.

3. 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."

[Emphasis supplied]

These principles which are contained in Article 11, reproduced above, have

to be read into the contract of service between 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. We conclude our discussion by providing that

the direction issued by the Industrial Tribunal shall be complied with by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10

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.