Mrs. Neera Mathur vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ...

on 31 October, 1991

Introduction

On April 8, 1991 a petition had been filed by Mrs. Neera Mathur under Article 226 against Life
Insurance Corporation of India under Civil Appeal No. 4488 of 1991. On May 25,1989
petitioner applied for the post of assistant in the corporation and cleared the written test as well
as the medical examination held by the corporation . she also filled a deceleration form after
that petitioner went through a short-term training programme. After successful completion of
the training she was given an appointment letter dated 25, September 1989. She was appointed
as Assistant but put on a probation period of 6 months. She was entitled to be confirmed in the
service subject to satisfactory work report. The petitioner took leave from 9 December 1989
till 8 March 1990. In fact, she applied for maternity leave on 27 December 1989 followed by
medical certificate dated 6 January. 1990. She was admitted to the Nursing Home of Dr. Hira
Lal on 10 January 1990. She delivered a baby on 11 January 1990. And was discharged from
Nursing Home on 19 January 1990. But on 13 February 1990, Neera Mathur was discharged
from the service. It was during her probation period. the corporation did not disclose any
ground for discharge of service. Therefore she appealed in the Delhi High Court. The court
dismissed the case on the bases that her work was not satisfactory during her probation period.
After that she again appealed to the court

Identification of the issue

The first issue was that such a giant organisation like Life insurance corporation of India which
talks about gender equality found to be guilty for not moving beyond the status-quo.

And the second issue arise when the women filled a discrepancy in her delectation form before
joining the service. She gave wrong information about her mensuration period date.

The next issue found that the corporation have nothing to indicate that the petitioner's work
during the period of probation was not satisfactory. Therefore, the reason for termination seems
to be different.

Next issue in the case was that the nature of declaration, under (iii) to (viii) in the declaration
are actually embarrassing if not humiliating.
Critical Analysis

After considering petitioner’s argument the corporation gave its counter point to justify the
termination of Mrs. Neeru Mathur from the service. The corporation stated that corporation
had discharge her from the service she was on her probation period. Therefore no reasons were
given and it was an order of discharge simpliciter. The decision to discharge the petitioner from
the service of the Corporation was on 2 grounds:

(1) because of a false declaration given by her at the very initial stage of her service; and (2)
her work during the period of probation was not satisfactory.

It was found that the petitioner deliberately had not disclose about that she was being in the
family way at the time of filling up the declaration form before medical examination for fitness.
The corporation also put an argument that the petitioner had given wrong information to them
in the declaration form. They gave the reference to the certificate provided by the nursing home
where petitioner gave birth to the child over there she had mentioned her last mensuration date
as April 3, 1989 but in declaration form she mentioned the date April 29, 1989.

Considering all the arguments presented by the parties court found that the nature of declaration
was such that if may not be hamulating but was embarrassing . As the declaration form consist
of question like follows-

a) Are you married-- Yes.

b) If so, please state:

i) Your Husband's Name in full & occupation Mr. PRADEEP MATHUR, Law Officer, Central
Pollution Control Board, Nehru Place, New Delhi.

ii) State the number of children, if any, and their present ages: One daughter: 1 year and 6
months.

iii) Have the menstrual periods always been regular and painless, and are they so now? .... Yes.

iv) How many conceptions have taken place? How many have gone full-term? One.

v) State the date of last menstruation: ... 29th April, 1989.

vi) Are you pregnant now? ... No.

vii) State the date of last delivery: 14th November, 1987.

viii) Have you had any abortion or miscarriage? ...No."

Considering these columns of the declaration form which only female candidate had to filled
in the presence of medical examiner court found it immoral.

Verdict Given By the court

The court awarded that modesty and self-respect may perhaps stopped her to disclose such
personal problems like whether her menstrual period is regular or painless, the number of
conceptions taken place, how many have gone full term etc. The Corporation should delete
such columns in the declaration. If the purpose of the declaration is to deny the maternity leave
and benefits to a lady candidate who is pregnant at the time of entering the service the
Corporation could subject her to medical examination including the pregnancy test. In the
circumstances the interim order already issued is made absolute. The court however, direct that
the appellant is not entitled to the salary from the date of discharge till her reinstatement. With
this direction the appeal stands disposed of but no order as to costs.

Recommendation

As the maternity Benefit act 1961 is to regulate the employment of women in certain
establishment for certain periods before and after child-birth and to provide for maternity
benefit and certain other benefits the court should have strictly ordered Corporation to remove
the columns from the declaration form and should have asked corporation to pay Mrs. Neeru
Mathur at least for the next 6 weeks from the date of her delivery. As under the maternity act
under section 9 of the act states that the women is entitle to avail 6 weeks leave after the date
of delivery.