High Court · 2025

3. The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Office of the Commissiorrer of Labour, Sth Floor, D-Block,BRKR Bhavan,Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500063. 4. Smat Bot, represented by its CEO, Ms. Tanvi Modi, ByteQuark Solutions,Ashoka Hi-Tech Chambers, 2F - Banjara Hills,Hyderabad Telangana 5ooo34 ...RE'P.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate order, direction, or Writ, particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents in not consklering the petitioner's representations regarding the non-payment of maternity benefits to her as arbitrary, high-handed, and a gross dereliction of statutory duty, in violation of Articles 14, 21 . and 39(e) and 39(f) of the Constitution of lMia. Consequently, direct the respondents to immediately consider and dispose of the petitioner's representations in compliance with the provisions of Sections 5 and 17 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, by granting all lawful maternity benefits due to ttrc petitioner IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ntay be pleased to direct respondents no. 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's representations and pass an order/ decision as per the mandate of section 17 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K. S. SAI PAVAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&3: GP FOR SERVICES ll Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.V. RAMA RAO,SC Counsel for the Respondent No.4:- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA'ESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.2276 OF 2O25 ORDER This writ petition is filed feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, in considering the petitioner's representatiom regard ing non-payment of maternity benefi ts, as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 2l and 39 (e) and 39 (f) of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Sri K.S. Sai Pavan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-Il for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Sri K.V. Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed as a Marketing Team Member in respondent No.4 Company on t6.05.2022 and worked sincerely and diligently till L2.O6.2O23. She was expecting her delivery between

20.09.2023 and 25.09.2023, as such, she contacted the HR department of respondent No.4 on 18.04.2023 to inquire about the maternity leave policy. After receiving the policy details, she applied for maternity leave for four months of paid leave from 10.08.2023 to 15.t2.2023. She was informed that she was eligible for only three months of paid maternity \'- - 2 leave, subject to additional conditions' as she had not completed two years of service in respondertt No'4 Company' Thereafter, she sent an official email on 1B'04'2023 to Mr. Tarun (HR) and Tanvi (CEO) of respondent No'4 Company, expressing her disappointment with inadequate maternity leave offered and her proposal to work remotely from home from 10.08.2023 to 05'09'2023' The said proposal was rejected, as such, she had no other optiorr except to resign from the job. Therefore, she served the required two- months notice period respectfully.

4. It is further stated that the petitioner raised the issue on the Samadhan Portal of the Government of India and she was advised to approach respondent No'2 - Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner by lodging a formal complaint' The petitioner sent emails to the Commissioner of Labour and also to respondent No.2, but there was no response to her email to complaints. Thereafter, the petitioner sent 'rn respondent No.3, to which, she received respons'e from them as 'for necessary actions'. Again for the same relief' the petitioner submitted a representation dated 2I'lI'2O24 to respondent No.2, but till date, no action has been taken' A 3

5. Learned Government pleader for Services_Il appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Mr. K.V. Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, expressed no objection for disposal of the writ petition with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by barned counsel for both parties,, this Court is of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of by directing the respondent No.3 to dispose of the petitioner,s representation dated

21.L1.2O24, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. I I AKSHMIBABU rl[f neatsrnen S SI \ /ITRUE COPY/' To,

1. 2 3 4 5 o SECTION OFFICER DePart S.,HYd ment of Labour, E erabad loyment, Training and The PrinciPal Secretary' Factor'res, Secretariat' T. r Comm issioner (Central)' NSTI CamPus, Opposite The DePUtY chbf Labou , VidYana Shivam Tem Floor, D-Block,BRKR BhAvan,Tank Bund Road, HYd erabad, Telangana - Joint Co The ?TfEh:"'* [".c 3e[,#si,1flu.%:J??#?rL stut. ot re,angana at Telanga na - 500007. of the. Commissioner of Labour, Sth mmissio erabad, Office r, Hyd Labour' Uvderabad [OUTI Two CD CoPies BM GJP w ,1 \ oi1 rHE sr ( "i, ''.. o L) 1ll JUil ,m t o6s r'ATCp. - a. HIGH COURT DATED:0 410212025 ORDER WP.No.2276 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS 1 rop(q\ W 6(r\aP