Dear Saikumar ji,
What you have elaborated above presumes that the pregnant lady is in employment. However, the fact is that the lady is not employed; she has only undergone the selection procedure. There is no contract between the lady and the company/bank. The protection under the Maternity Benefit Act is given to working women.
There is no compulsion on the interviewer to employ a pregnant woman by any law. Therefore, I invite discussions: if a pregnant woman is rejected for employment, what can one do?
I hope my point is very clear.
Thanks and regards,
Keshav Korgaonkar
Shantadurgaent.com
Insurance Advisors, Corporate Advisors, Legal Advice, Wage and salary, Labour Compliance Audit, SSI registration, NOC from
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
2584What you have elaborated above presumes that the pregnant lady is in employment. However, the fact is that the lady is not employed; she has only undergone the selection procedure. There is no contract between the lady and the company/bank. The protection under the Maternity Benefit Act is given to working women.
There is no compulsion on the interviewer to employ a pregnant woman by any law. Therefore, I invite discussions: if a pregnant woman is rejected for employment, what can one do?
I hope my point is very clear.
Thanks and regards,
Keshav Korgaonkar
Shantadurgaent.com
Insurance Advisors, Corporate Advisors, Legal Advice, Wage and salary, Labour Compliance Audit, SSI registration, NOC from
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
No, she shouldn't be rejected in medical due to it's a matter of any woman's life. If medical makes any wrong diagnosis or does not provide proper treatment, she may face risks in carrying out a safe pregnancy, ultimately resulting in miscarriage or other dangerous issues.
Hasan Sr. Executive - HR Giant Group (www.giantbd.com)
From Bangladesh, Dhaka
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hasan Sr. Executive - HR Giant Group (www.giantbd.com)
From Bangladesh, Dhaka
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is nice of you to welcome such discussion. What I said is that if a woman employee is found unfit for employment by an employer solely on grounds of her pregnancy but for which she would have been in employment, she has a case to fight. Though the Maternity Benefit Act protects her rights during employment, it also ensures her against unemployment. In this hypothetical case, she is not in employment, but she would have been in employment but for her pregnancy, and thus her employment is deemed employment.
Secondly, the law operates beyond the confines of a contract. Thirdly, she has the support of the constitution. However, if the employer rejects a woman candidate for some ostensible reason like lack of knowledge or required skills but really for her pregnancy, one cannot help it. However, the discussion is purely of academic importance since a pregnancy test cannot be a pathological test to be conducted on a candidate at the time of recruitment.
B. Saikumar HR & Labour Law Advisor Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Secondly, the law operates beyond the confines of a contract. Thirdly, she has the support of the constitution. However, if the employer rejects a woman candidate for some ostensible reason like lack of knowledge or required skills but really for her pregnancy, one cannot help it. However, the discussion is purely of academic importance since a pregnancy test cannot be a pathological test to be conducted on a candidate at the time of recruitment.
B. Saikumar HR & Labour Law Advisor Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
She has a case to fight and she does not have a case to fight.
Depends on people to people,
She can be rejected very easily and even SBI can recover the amount of Rs. 100,000 from her; everything is possible using the loopholes in the Indian legal system.
I am not here to argue that pregnant women should apply or not.
I will ask you some questions:
You are the employer/HR, and for your company, a position X is lying vacant as the person working in that position has resigned from the job. So, you need to fill the position X. As the company is already operating on tight schedules, it is not possible to share the workload of position X with other members. During the interview as an HR, your job profile demands that you should recruit a candidate who will be loyal and hardworking in the long run. This is what you are being paid your salary for, and management will expect the same thing from you. Now, during the selection process, usually, you will select some five candidates and need to finalize one for the position X. In that, you find and offer one woman the job with the condition that if found medically fit?
So, when you come to know that during the medical checkup that she is pregnant, you have to really think whether it is worth recruiting her when you know in the coming months she needs to take leave for delivery, etc. Also, since olden times, it's seen that all companies favor giving such benefits to long-serving loyal employees and not to any employee who joined two months ago and goes pregnant in the third month.
Here it is not the question of giving maternity benefits. The question is why would anyone knowingly hack his own leg with an axe? Because in the future, when the lady goes on medical leave, she will get monetary benefits, and the company needs to engage another person for a temporary period so that the work can be done. Most companies either split the work among other colleagues, increasing their frustration as they need to stay late in the office because this lady went on pregnant leave. After all, we all are humans and we have emotions and a life too.
Also, in the future, after delivery, she may have personal problems with no one to take care of the baby, further health issues, and may choose to remain a housewife as per her family circumstances. In such cases, the company loses a heavy amount of money and gains nothing.
So, any HR person would choose not to recruit such persons in their company. And there are many legal ways in which the company, if they wish, can very sweetly pressure the person to resign in one month by making her work long hours. Mind it, I know SBI now, don't think SBI is some government organization; I have seen the local SBI staff near my office working till late evening at 8:00 pm. So the same will be applicable to this lady too.
To all ladies,
What is your opinion on this? If knowing you are pregnant, will you be ready to join a job and work as other employees do work?
You have to think from an HR point of view, so I would request an answer from LADIES who are HR and WORKING IN HR and have DONE RECRUITMENT.
If you find yourself in such a situation, what will be your decision? Will you apply to companies just to take maternity benefits, knowing you are pregnant, or choose to sit at home and after delivery join a job after confirming that your child will be looked after well during the day? Because this is where pregnant mothers leave jobs; after delivery, in-laws don't care, then the mother has to leave the job, and the company loses lots of money and time in this. Being corporate, we have seen so many cases where employees working in the company for more than 5 years are literally thrown off/terminated just because they had an accident or were sick for 1-2 months and could not come to work. Is this greater than not allowing to join a pregnant woman?
I would only request replies from sensible HR people who know for what company works and what decisions are to be taken and not from some lawyer who may just merely quote a law because we need to be practical, and practicality is, in India, no law is made for practical scenarios. If you strictly follow any law, you can't do anything.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Depends on people to people,
She can be rejected very easily and even SBI can recover the amount of Rs. 100,000 from her; everything is possible using the loopholes in the Indian legal system.
I am not here to argue that pregnant women should apply or not.
I will ask you some questions:
You are the employer/HR, and for your company, a position X is lying vacant as the person working in that position has resigned from the job. So, you need to fill the position X. As the company is already operating on tight schedules, it is not possible to share the workload of position X with other members. During the interview as an HR, your job profile demands that you should recruit a candidate who will be loyal and hardworking in the long run. This is what you are being paid your salary for, and management will expect the same thing from you. Now, during the selection process, usually, you will select some five candidates and need to finalize one for the position X. In that, you find and offer one woman the job with the condition that if found medically fit?
So, when you come to know that during the medical checkup that she is pregnant, you have to really think whether it is worth recruiting her when you know in the coming months she needs to take leave for delivery, etc. Also, since olden times, it's seen that all companies favor giving such benefits to long-serving loyal employees and not to any employee who joined two months ago and goes pregnant in the third month.
Here it is not the question of giving maternity benefits. The question is why would anyone knowingly hack his own leg with an axe? Because in the future, when the lady goes on medical leave, she will get monetary benefits, and the company needs to engage another person for a temporary period so that the work can be done. Most companies either split the work among other colleagues, increasing their frustration as they need to stay late in the office because this lady went on pregnant leave. After all, we all are humans and we have emotions and a life too.
Also, in the future, after delivery, she may have personal problems with no one to take care of the baby, further health issues, and may choose to remain a housewife as per her family circumstances. In such cases, the company loses a heavy amount of money and gains nothing.
So, any HR person would choose not to recruit such persons in their company. And there are many legal ways in which the company, if they wish, can very sweetly pressure the person to resign in one month by making her work long hours. Mind it, I know SBI now, don't think SBI is some government organization; I have seen the local SBI staff near my office working till late evening at 8:00 pm. So the same will be applicable to this lady too.
To all ladies,
What is your opinion on this? If knowing you are pregnant, will you be ready to join a job and work as other employees do work?
You have to think from an HR point of view, so I would request an answer from LADIES who are HR and WORKING IN HR and have DONE RECRUITMENT.
If you find yourself in such a situation, what will be your decision? Will you apply to companies just to take maternity benefits, knowing you are pregnant, or choose to sit at home and after delivery join a job after confirming that your child will be looked after well during the day? Because this is where pregnant mothers leave jobs; after delivery, in-laws don't care, then the mother has to leave the job, and the company loses lots of money and time in this. Being corporate, we have seen so many cases where employees working in the company for more than 5 years are literally thrown off/terminated just because they had an accident or were sick for 1-2 months and could not come to work. Is this greater than not allowing to join a pregnant woman?
I would only request replies from sensible HR people who know for what company works and what decisions are to be taken and not from some lawyer who may just merely quote a law because we need to be practical, and practicality is, in India, no law is made for practical scenarios. If you strictly follow any law, you can't do anything.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
I am very happy that someone started a discussion emphatically being in the shoes of a real HR professional. Thank you, kraviravi.kravi.
Regards,
Keshav Korgaonkar
[Shantadurgaent.com](http://www.shantadurgaent.com) - Insurance Advisors, Corporate Advisors, Legal Advice, Wage and Salary, Labour Compliance Audit, SSI Registration, NOC.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am very happy that someone started a discussion emphatically being in the shoes of a real HR professional. Thank you, kraviravi.kravi.
Regards,
Keshav Korgaonkar
[Shantadurgaent.com](http://www.shantadurgaent.com) - Insurance Advisors, Corporate Advisors, Legal Advice, Wage and Salary, Labour Compliance Audit, SSI Registration, NOC.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This forum is open to all, and everyone can voice his opinions/views, more so when a debate and discussion are deliberately invited. Sensibility is a subjective matter. What appeals to be sensible to one may not appeal to others. Thus, no one needs to assume the role of a self-styled judge in this regard. The acceptance of an issue as sensible or not does not depend upon an individual employer's whims and fancies but depends on how society perceives it. It is the laws that reflect the perceptions and will of society, and thus their spirit, especially in the case of welfare legislation, needs to be understood with the sensitivity they deserve. The lack of social sensitivity, ignorance of welfare aspects of social legislations like labor laws, and tinkering with them with disregard by managements often breed distrust between management and employees, leading to a souring of industrial relations as witnessed of late.
Now the issue is not why an employer should select a pregnant woman. If an employer does not want to select a pregnant woman for various reasons, he can very well cite a hundred reasons and may choose not to recruit her. There ends the matter. The issue sought to be posed is whether an employer can reject a woman who is one month pregnant solely on the grounds of pregnancy but for which she would have been employed. The issue thus acquires a moral and legal dimension, especially when the woman is only one month pregnant and is not going to go away the next day itself. It attracted a debate because of this moral and legal dimension. Otherwise, there is nothing in the issue to debate. Many members have discussed the issue from this perspective. Regrettably, this aspect has been sorely missed by some, and the issue is sought to be debated on the grounds of the employer's convenience.
What if the employer is running on a tight schedule, and a woman proceeds on maternity leave? Will he terminate her since she is upsetting his schedule? What if a woman holding a critical role suddenly resigns? Will he stop her or harass her for upsetting his schedule? Is this the HR with sensitivity?
Thanks, there are laws for the protection of employees, without which they would have been left to fend for themselves. Thanks also to some organizations, to great relief, who are sensitive to women's issues and protect their employment through various plans.
B. Saikumar
HR & Labor Law Advisor
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Now the issue is not why an employer should select a pregnant woman. If an employer does not want to select a pregnant woman for various reasons, he can very well cite a hundred reasons and may choose not to recruit her. There ends the matter. The issue sought to be posed is whether an employer can reject a woman who is one month pregnant solely on the grounds of pregnancy but for which she would have been employed. The issue thus acquires a moral and legal dimension, especially when the woman is only one month pregnant and is not going to go away the next day itself. It attracted a debate because of this moral and legal dimension. Otherwise, there is nothing in the issue to debate. Many members have discussed the issue from this perspective. Regrettably, this aspect has been sorely missed by some, and the issue is sought to be debated on the grounds of the employer's convenience.
What if the employer is running on a tight schedule, and a woman proceeds on maternity leave? Will he terminate her since she is upsetting his schedule? What if a woman holding a critical role suddenly resigns? Will he stop her or harass her for upsetting his schedule? Is this the HR with sensitivity?
Thanks, there are laws for the protection of employees, without which they would have been left to fend for themselves. Thanks also to some organizations, to great relief, who are sensitive to women's issues and protect their employment through various plans.
B. Saikumar
HR & Labor Law Advisor
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Saikumar ji, I appreciate your participation. There are more than 1200 viewers to this topic but very few have contributed to it. Thanks and regards. Keshav Korgaonkar
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi No , however keeping in view her physical condition/ medical prescription , offer can be put on hold . regards Chaman
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is not possible to reject or deny employment to a female on the grounds of pregnancy. At the time of the interview, most banks ask this question. If they do, they should not select her for employment, even though as per labor law rules, it is not permissible. The fact is that she may go on long leave after joining and also take leave often pre and post-delivery. However, if she is selected and employed, they cannot reject her on these grounds.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Ravi,
You want to discuss the practicality of the subject, let's come to it. I will not quote any law nor would talk about any, just one question: all the scenarios you cited may happen with a lady even after joining the company and working there for years. What should they do at that time? Probably, women should not work in the first place? Is it so?
Dear Friend, motherhood is a natural process. It is a blessing for the family who has it. More than the legal aspect, it has emotional value attached to it. Maternity Benefits should not be seen as a burden on the company finances. When a baby is born, not only the mother but the whole family goes through many phases of mental and physical changes. For example, they wake up with the child at night if he wishes not to sleep; they begin to understand and distinguish between the little one's different weepings, or many things. At times, many co-workers have to suffer and adjust their time so that their colleague may take care of her baby. This is what is called social responsibility, and everyone should contribute to it on humanitarian grounds. Yes, it is unfortunate that many companies do terminate many ladies at such a crucial phase of her life. But this is the difference between a good and a bad company.
Not everything can be decided on practicalities, my friend. Sometimes we have to accept things the way they are. Hope you have your reply.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You want to discuss the practicality of the subject, let's come to it. I will not quote any law nor would talk about any, just one question: all the scenarios you cited may happen with a lady even after joining the company and working there for years. What should they do at that time? Probably, women should not work in the first place? Is it so?
Dear Friend, motherhood is a natural process. It is a blessing for the family who has it. More than the legal aspect, it has emotional value attached to it. Maternity Benefits should not be seen as a burden on the company finances. When a baby is born, not only the mother but the whole family goes through many phases of mental and physical changes. For example, they wake up with the child at night if he wishes not to sleep; they begin to understand and distinguish between the little one's different weepings, or many things. At times, many co-workers have to suffer and adjust their time so that their colleague may take care of her baby. This is what is called social responsibility, and everyone should contribute to it on humanitarian grounds. Yes, it is unfortunate that many companies do terminate many ladies at such a crucial phase of her life. But this is the difference between a good and a bad company.
Not everything can be decided on practicalities, my friend. Sometimes we have to accept things the way they are. Hope you have your reply.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.