AI generated image used for representative purpose
NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court has held that a woman returning from maternity leave is ordinarily entitled to be restored to the same position she held before going on leave and cannot be placed at a professional disadvantage because of pregnancy or motherhood. The court also directed the employer to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation and Rs 1.5 lakh costs to a woman who alleged that she was moved to a less important role after returning from maternity leave. The judgment was pronounced on August 31, 2026.
Why did the woman approach the high court? According to the court order, the petitioner, a chartered accountant with about 14 years of professional experience, was appointed as manager, Accounting in 2022 with a monthly salary of Rs 2.6 lakh. She informed her employer about her pregnancy in May 2023 and was later moved to another team. She went on maternity leave in December 2023 and returned in July 2024. The woman alleged that after returning, she was not restored to her earlier role. Instead, she was assigned to the Treasury Department, where she had no employees reporting to her and was excluded from managerial meetings for a considerable period. She also said that her male counterparts were promoted to senior manager while she was not restored to her earlier position. She further complained that the company did not have a creche facility when she asked about it after returning from maternity leave. She eventually resigned from the company in October 2024 and joined another company. The employer disputed the allegations and said she had remained a Manager-Accounting at the same level, with the same salary and designation. It said the Treasury assignment was temporary and resulted from organisational restructuring and business requirements. The employer also said she had received an increment and all statutory maternity benefits.
Why did the high court hold that maternity protection extends beyond leave? Justice Sachin Datta held that Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 does not merely protect a woman from dismissal during maternity leave. It also protects her from any disadvantageous change in her service conditions because of pregnancy or maternity leave. The court said this protection covers actions such as demotion, reduction in managerial or supervisory authority, assignment to a substantially inferior role, denial of promotion opportunities and withdrawal of significant responsibilities.
“A purposive and beneficial interpretation of Section 12 necessarily extends its protection to all forms of adverse employment action that operate to the detriment of a woman employee on account of pregnancy or maternity leave. Such actions would include, demotion, reduction in managerial or supervisory authority, reassignment to a substantially inferior role, denial of promotional opportunities, withdrawal of significant responsibilities, or any other measure that results in a material deterioration of her service conditions or professional standing. The underlying legislative premise is that pregnancy and childbirth must not become a source of professional disadvantage, and that a woman’s status, responsibilities, authority, and career progression must remain insulated from prejudice arising solely on account of motherhood,” the court held.
The court also considered a situation where an employer keeps an employee’s salary and designation unchanged but substantially reduces her responsibilities, authority and career prospects after she returns from maternity leave. “This court is of the considered opinion that an interpretation which permits an employer to achieve such an outcome would substantially defeat the object and purpose of the legislation. The law cannot be construed in a manner that allows its substantive guarantees to be circumvented through formal or cosmetic compliance. The object of the Maternity Benefit Act is not merely to ensure continuity of wages during the period of maternity. The legislation is a social welfare measure intended to protect the dignity of motherhood, preserve the economic security of women, and ensure that pregnancy does not become a source of professional disadvantage,” it said.
The high court further linked these protections to the constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity and reproductive autonomy. It said maternity protection does not end with the grant of leave or payment of benefits but also requires meaningful reintegration into the workplace.
“This court has already noted that the protections flowing from Articles 14, 15, 21 and 42 of the Constitution, when read together with the object and purpose of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (as well as the corresponding provisions of the Code on Social Security, 2020) and the expansive language employed in Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, necessarily contemplate protection against substantive post-maternity disadvantage. The right of a woman employee not to suffer professional detriment on account of pregnancy or maternity leave is thus traceable not merely to statute but also to constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, non-discrimination, and reproductive autonomy,” the court further held.
The court held that a woman returning from maternity leave should ordinarily be restored to the same position. If that is genuinely not possible, she should be given an equivalent position with substantially similar pay, status, seniority, responsibilities, managerial authority, decision-making functions, promotional opportunities and career prospects. It also directed that if an employer proposes a significant change in an employee’s responsibilities, pay, grade, reporting chain, team assignment or work location during maternity leave, it must give prior intimation and explain the reasons for the proposed change.
The court directed the employer to pay the petitioner Rs 10 lakh as compensation and Rs 1.5 lakh towards costs. The amounts will carry 9 percent annual interest from the date of the judgment if not paid within eight weeks. The high court also directed the centre to frame rules, schemes or directions within six months for effective implementation of maternity protections, including safeguards relating to pregnancy, return to work, lactation, creche facilities, grievance redressal and retaliation. The court accordingly disposed of the petition while laying down these protections for women employees.
