MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus FEMALE WORKERS (MUSTER ROLL) AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 171 · Decided: 08-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
--
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 
v. 
FEMALE WORKERS (MUSTER ROLL) AND ANR. 
MARCH 8, 2000 
[S. SAGHIRAHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Labour Laws : 
Maternity Benefit Act, 1961-Sections 2, 3(b), (c), (h), (o) and (n), 5, 6, 
8 to 12, 21, 23 and 27-Female muster roll workers earning daily wages 
denied maternity benefits by Municipal Corporation of Delhi-Industrial 
Tribunal on reference held them at par with regular female employees-High 
Court dismissed writ petition and LPA.filed by Corporation-Held, provisions 
of the Act are wholly in consonance with Directive Principles of State Policy-
Nothing in the Act entitled only regular employees to maternity benefits and 
not those engaged on muster roll-Constitution of India-Preamble, Articles 
14, 15,(3), 38, 39, 42 and 43. 
Sections 2( 1) proviso and 5-Municipal Corporations and Boards are 
"Industry"-Employees on muster roll are "workmen" and dispute between 
them and corporation is Industrial Dispute-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Respondents female workers on the muster roll of the petitioner 
corporation, demanded maternity benefit available to regular female 
workers under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Industrial Tribunal on 
reference, held respondents being equal to the regular employees were 
entitled to similar benefits. The writ petition filed by the corporation 
before the High Court was dismissed. The petitioner filed L.P .A. which 
F 
was also dismissed on the ground of delay. Heuce this Special Leave 
Petition. 
The Petition contended before this Court that provisions of Act have 
not been applied to the corporation, and so the Tribunal could not issue 
such directions; and that the benefits contemplated by the Act can only 
extent to workmen in an ''industry'' and not to the respondents. 
Dismissing the petition, this Court. 
HELD : 1. The provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 indi-
G 
cate that they are wholly in consonance with the Directive Principles of 
H 
171 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
172 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
State Policy, as set out in the Constitution. A woman employee at the time 
of advanced pregnancy cannot be compelled to undertake hard labour as 
it would be detrimental to her health. There is nothing iri 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. [182-D-E] 
Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. v. Workmen, [1967] 1 SCR 652 and Yusuf 
Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay, (1954) SCR 930, relied on. 
2. 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 of work, whatever be their nature of 
duty, avocation and place of work. The employer has to be sympathetic 
and considerate towards her and realise the physical difficulties which she 
would face in performing her duties while carrying a baby in the womb or 
while rearing up the child after birth. The Maternity Benefit Act aims to 
provide all facilities needed for the birth of a child 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 victimized for 
forced absence during the pre or post natal period. (184-E-G] 
Messrs Crown Aluminium Works v. Their Workmen, (1958) SCR 651 and 
J.K. Cotton and Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. l.Jd. v. Badri Mali & Ors., 
[1964] 3 SCR 724, relied on. 
3. Municipal Corporation or Board have already been held to be 
F 
''industry'' within the meaning of ''Industrial Disputes Act''. The activity 
of the 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 those employed on muster roll for carrying 
out these actiVities would, therefore, be ''workmen" and the dispute be-
G 
tween them and the Corporation would have to be tacked as an industrial 
dispute in the light of various statutory provisions of the Industrial Law, 
one of which is the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. [185-B; 186-B) 
H 
Udge Budge Municipality v. Sri P.R. Mukherjee, (1953) fLLJ 195 SC 
and Baroda Bor.ough Municipality v. Its Workmen, (1957) 1 LLJ 8 SC, relied 
on. 
MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF DELHI v. FEMALE WORKERS [S.S. AHMAD. J.] 
173 
Corporation of the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.