High Court Stays Govt Notification Mandating Paid Menstrual Leave For Female Employees

Karnataka HC on paid menstrual leave



Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court stayed a November 20 state government notification granting paid menstrual leave for female employees across industrial establishments in the state.

Justice Jyoti M granted the interim stay after hearing a petition filed by Bengaluru Hotels Association. The management of Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems Limited filed a similar petition which was heard by the court.

The notification, that mandated one day’s paid menstrual leave, applied to all industries and establishments registered under the Factories Act, 1948, the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961, the Plantation Labour Act, 1951, the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 and the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961.

The government had extended the benefit of one

day of paid menstrual leave every month to permanent, contract and outsourced women employees.

Advocate Prashant BK, who appeared for Bengaluru Hotels Association — which represents hotels, restaurants, bakeries, sweet shops and ice cream parlours with about 1,540 active member establishments — argued that there were already adequate provisions governing employee leave. He pointed out that the notification did not indicate under which power the government has issued it.

The hotels body told the court that the matter should have been left to individual establishments to decide as part of their human resources policies.

“The impugned notification issued by the Respondent is not supported by any legislative enactment Government is not empowered to direct the industrial establishments to provide menstrual leave by way of an executive order,” the advocate stated, adding that the policy will impose additional financial burdens and carry “serious civil consequences”.

The high court sought the response of the state government, and stayed the policy’s implementation.

The court added that the government was at liberty to seek modification of the order, if required, Bar and Bench reported.

Exit mobile version