Holding

The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 applies to female muster‑roll workers of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which is an industry, and they are entitled to maternity benefits; the petition is dismissed.

Summary

Female workers employed on a daily‑wage muster roll by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi were denied maternity benefits that regular female employees received. The Industrial Tribunal held that these workers were entitled to the benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and directed the corporation to extend them. The corporation challenged the Tribunal’s award in the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the petition, and a subsequent Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed for delay. The corporation filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court, contending that the Act did not apply to muster‑roll workers and that the corporation was not an "industry" within the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court held that the corporation’s activities constitute an industry, that the definition of "woman" in the Act includes daily‑wage workers, and that the Act’s provisions are in harmony with the Constitution’s Directive Principles and gender‑equality guarantees. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the corporation was directed to provide maternity benefits to eligible muster‑roll workers.

Issues considered

Whether female workers employed on a muster roll (daily‑wage) are covered by the definition of "woman" under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
Whether the Municipal Corporation of Delhi qualifies as an "industry" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act can be extended to casual or daily‑wage workers in the absence of a specific notification under Section 2(1).
Whether the award of the Industrial Tribunal can be enforced despite the corporation’s claim of non‑applicability of the Act.

Legislation cited

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Maternity Benefit Act, 1961s. 10, s. 11, s. 12, s. 2, s. 21, s. 23, s. 27, s. 3(b), s. 3(c), s. 3(h), s. 3(n), s. 3(o), s. 5, s. 6, s. 8, s. 9, s. 9A
Minimum Wages Act, 1948

Subjects

Maternity Benefit ActIndustrial DisputeMunicipal CorporationDaily‑wage workersGender equalityDirective PrinciplesConstitutional lawLabour law

Judgment

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

MARCH 8, 2000

[S. SAGHIRAHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] B

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
c
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 D
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.
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
was also dismissed on the ground of delay. Heuce this Special Leave
Petition.
F

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 G
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-
cate that they are wholly in consonance with the Directive Principles of H
171
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A 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]
B
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
c 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
D 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]
E
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)

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
H on.
MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF DELHI v. FEMALE WORKERS [S.S. AHMAD. J.] 173
Corporation ofthe City ofNagpur v. fts Employees and Others, [1960) 1 A
LLJ 523 SC; Municipal Committee, Bhiwani v. Padam Singh and Others,
(1973) LIC 1512; Administrator of the City ofNagpur Municipal Corporation
v. Labour Court, Nagpur, 1961LIC107; Sirur Municipality v. Its Workmen,
(1960) 2 LLJ 657; Municipal Council Washim v. Manguji 'Zenduji Dhamane,
(1978) LIC 881 and Rajendranagar Municipality v. B. V. Perraju, (1995) LIC
B
2102, approved.

Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights, (1948) Convention on Elimina-
tion of all froms of discrimination against women, referred to.

4. The benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act shall be provided to c
the women (muster roll) employees of the appellant corporation, who have
been working with them on daily wages. The appellant-corporation shall
approach the State and the Central Government for issuing necessary
Notification under Section 2(1) of the Act, if it has not already been issued.
' [188-Bl
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No.
12797 of 1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.98 of the Delhi High Court in
L.P.A. No. 64 of 1998.
E
Ms. Arnita Gupta for the Petitioner.

K.K. Rai for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
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 G
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 H
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A 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 anci they are made to work in that capacity for
B 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
c 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 udner the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The denial
D 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
E
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.
--
F
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 before the Delhi
G 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.

H Learned counsel for the Corporation contended that the Division Bench
MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF DELHI v. FEMALE WORKERS [S.S. AHMAD, J.] 175
was not justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay which ought A
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
B
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.
c
- 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 wor~ at the site of
construction and repairing of roads. Their services have also been utilised for
D
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 E
look at the Fundam~ntal.Rights contained in Chapter III of the Constitution.
Aiticle 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 this Article vis-a-vis the Labour Laws, this Court in Hindustan Antibiotics
l.Jd v. Workmen, AIR (1967) SC 948=[1967] 1SCR652, has held that labour
F
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:-
G
"(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
lnL H
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A 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 secring 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
B
in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and
opportnities.

Article 39 provides, inter alia, as under :

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

D_. (b) ··················

(c) ·····.·············

(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
E 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) ...................... ".

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.
G 43. Living wage, etc., for workers - The State shall endeavour to
secure, by suitable legislation or economic orgallisation 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
H and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to promote cottage
MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF DELHI v. FEMALE WORKERS [S.S. AHMAD, J.] 177
industries on an individual or co-operative basis in rural areas." A

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. B
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.
c
The Parliament has already made the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. It is
not cij._sputed 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 D
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 E
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
F
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 ~der :

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

·Section 5 provides, inter alia, as under :
G

"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, H
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A that is lo say, the period immediately preceding the day of her
detivery, 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 means the average of the woman's wages payable to her for the
B days on which she has worked during the p_eriod 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.
c (2) No woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit IDiless she has
actually worked in an establishment of the employer from whom she
claims maternity benefit, for a pe1iod of not less than eighty days
in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her
expected delivery.
D

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
E 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 beenfit shall be twelve weeks of which not more than six
F
weeks shall precede the date of her expected delivery.

G 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
H six weeks following the day of her delivery. The qualifying condi-
,,,

MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF DELHI v. FEMALE WORKERS [S.S. AHMAD, J.] 179
tion is employment for 240 days in the· 12 months immediately A
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: B

"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- c
off', if any."

Section SA 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
D
benefits under this Act so long as she does not become qualified to claim
maternity benefits under Section SO of that Act.

It may be stated that Section SO of the Employees' State Insurance Act,
1948 provides as under :
"Maternity benefit - The qualification of an insured woman to E
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 SB of .the Maternity Act speaks of payment of maternity
benefit in certain cases. Section 6 provides notice of claim for maternity
F
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 2SO rupees, if no pre-natal confinement or post-
natal care is provided by the employer free of charge.
G
Sectio 9 contemplates leave for miscarriage or medical termination of
pregnancy. Section 9A contemplates leave for tubectomy operation whereas
Section IO 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 H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.

A 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
B service of a woman employee, provides as under :

"12. Dismissal during absence or pregnancy - (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
C 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 discharg·e or dismissal of a woman at any time during her
pregnancy, if the woman but for such discharge or dismissal would
D 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
E 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
F
sixty days from the date on which order of such deprivation or
discharge or dismissal is communicated to her, ai:ipeal 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
G 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
H account of her absence on maternity leave. It ensures that the conditions of
,1\

MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF DELHI v. FEMALE WORKERS [S.S. AHMAD, J:] 181
her service would not be varied to her disadvantage dring her absence. A
Contravention of the provisions of this Act has been made an offence
under Section 21 of the Act which provides as under :

"2( Penalty for contravention of Act by employer - (1) If any
employer fails to pay any amount of maternity benefit to a woman B
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 fme which shall not be less than two thousand
rupees but which may extend to five thousand rupees :
·c
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
D
made thereunder, he shall, if no other penalty is elsewhere provided ·
by or under this Act for such contravention, be punishable with
imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fme which may
extend to five thousand rupees, or with both :
E
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 fme and pay the same to the person entitled thereto."
F
Cognizance of offences has been provided for in Section 23, which is
reproduced as under :
I
"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 G
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 en which the
offence is alleged to have been committed. H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A (2) No court inferiror 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
B any other law or in the temis 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 tho~e she would be entitled to under this Act.
c
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
D
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
E 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
Coiporation on muster roll, that is to say, on daily wage basis for doing
p various kinds of works in projects like construction of buildin~s. 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
G
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
H Corporation. It felt that this lacuna could be removed by the State Govt. by
....I

MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF DELHI v. FEMALE WORKERS [S.S. AHMAD, J.] 183
issuing the necessary notification under the Proviso to Section 2 of the A
Maternity Act. This Proviso lays down as under:

"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 B
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 c
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 D
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 :
E
(i)° Whether the female workers working on muster roll should be
given any maternity bepefit?

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

The award made by the Industrial Tribunal completely -answers the F
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 G
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 H
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A 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 :
B
"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 shotild 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
c industrial adjudication aloIJ.e. 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,
D 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.
E 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
F must realise the physical diffictilties 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,
G 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
H is too stale an argument to be heard. Learned counsel also forgets that
MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF DELHI v. FEMALE WORKERS [S.S. AHMAD, J.] 185
Municipal Corporation was treated to be an 'industry' and, therefore, a 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
B
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 Municipalit)1 v. /ts Workmen, (1957) 1 LLJ
8 (SC), in which the Court observed that those branches of work of the C
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, (1960) 1 LLJ 523 (SC). In this case, various D
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. Padani Singh and
Others, 1973 Labour and Industrial Cases 1512, held that fire-brigade E
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. !Ahour 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,
F
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;, G
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". H
I'

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R..
A Talcing into consideration the enunciation of law as settled by this Cciurt
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
B
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.

c 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
Rights, adopted by the United Nations on 10th of December, 1948, set in
·motion the universal thinking that hwnan rights are supreme and ought to-be
preserved at all costs. ~s was followed by a series of Convention.s. On 18th
D 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
E 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 malienable right of all hwnan beings;
F
(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
G
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;

H (d) The right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to
MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF DELHI v. FEMALE WORKERS [S.S. AHMAD, J.] 187

-· 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-
A

ment, unemployment, sickness, invalidity and old age and other
incapacity to work, as well as the right to paid leave.
B
(t) 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, c
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;
D
(b) To introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable
social be.µefits without loss of former employment, senicrity or
social allowances;

(c) To encourage the provision of the necessary supporting
social services to enable parents to combine family obligations E
with work responsibilities and participation in public life, in
... particular through promoting the establishment ~d develop-
ment of a network of child-care facilities;

(d) To provide special protection to women dUring pregnancy F
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."
G
[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 au the benefits conceived under H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. We condude our discussion by providing
that the direction issued by the Industrial Tribunal shall be complied with
by 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,
B if it has not already been issued. In the meantime, the be~efits 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.

c A..Q. Petition dismissed.

I I ,f

"