Hello Azim
The Maternity Benefit Act 1961 does not lay down the manner in which the average of women employed daily in an establishment shall be calculated. Therefore in my view, in the absence of a statutory prescription, one can follow the normal mathematical method of calculating average in arriving at an average of women employed daily in an establishment, of course counting not only permanent women employees but those employed on part time or temporary basis or through contractor.
B.Saikumar
In-house HR & IR Advisor
From India, Mumbai
1899The Maternity Benefit Act 1961 does not lay down the manner in which the average of women employed daily in an establishment shall be calculated. Therefore in my view, in the absence of a statutory prescription, one can follow the normal mathematical method of calculating average in arriving at an average of women employed daily in an establishment, of course counting not only permanent women employees but those employed on part time or temporary basis or through contractor.
B.Saikumar
In-house HR & IR Advisor
From India, Mumbai
Dear Azim ji,
Answer by Saikumar ji is beyond any doubt. I also have answered your same query in some other thread in my words.
Just to add Saikumar ji, explanatory notes to Annual Return under MFR 1963 it is clearly mentioned how to arrive the average number of workers employed daily.
I feel, we being HR Professional should have our own study on basics.
From India, Mumbai
Answer by Saikumar ji is beyond any doubt. I also have answered your same query in some other thread in my words.
Just to add Saikumar ji, explanatory notes to Annual Return under MFR 1963 it is clearly mentioned how to arrive the average number of workers employed daily.
I feel, we being HR Professional should have our own study on basics.
From India, Mumbai
I appreciate Mr.keshhav ji for this excellent piece of input which serves as a handy guide on calculating average number of workers employed in a year.in an establishment Thanks for the same.
B.Saikumar
In-house HR & IR Advisor
From India, Mumbai
B.Saikumar
In-house HR & IR Advisor
From India, Mumbai
Dear All,
This Sunday morning I was celebrating reading some of the old threads. One of them is the current one.
Our Board Moderator respected Shri. Anil Arora has nicely concluded this thread.
Once the thread is concluded that too, by very Senior person, it is not appropriate to continue the thread. But still with the permission of our Board Moderator, I take the opportunity to share what came to my reading today itself in Maharashtra Times dated today (in Vachak Vishesh i.e. readers' corner).
One of the writers in the readers' corner in furtherance to an article on Maternity Leave published in Maharashtra Times dated 12.04.2015, narrated an incident on maternity leave granted by RATAN TATA to his daughter in 2003 which is as under.
The daughter of the said writer joined TCS in August 20013 as an Engineer on probation. In three months time on joining, she gave birth to a child. She was not entitled to maternity leave as per law. She made an application for loss of pay leave. The application went to approval by RATAN TATA. RATAN TATA asked a question on her application, which rule in our company stops her from becoming a mother and sanctioned her a leave with full pay with respect to her motherhood.
Every corporate or company unfortunately we do not have RATAN TATA. We should have RATAN TATA in every corporate or company.
I am aware that this posting of mine has no relevance to the current thread but I thought this incident is worth knowing by us and fit to share with you.
From India, Mumbai
This Sunday morning I was celebrating reading some of the old threads. One of them is the current one.
Our Board Moderator respected Shri. Anil Arora has nicely concluded this thread.
Once the thread is concluded that too, by very Senior person, it is not appropriate to continue the thread. But still with the permission of our Board Moderator, I take the opportunity to share what came to my reading today itself in Maharashtra Times dated today (in Vachak Vishesh i.e. readers' corner).
One of the writers in the readers' corner in furtherance to an article on Maternity Leave published in Maharashtra Times dated 12.04.2015, narrated an incident on maternity leave granted by RATAN TATA to his daughter in 2003 which is as under.
The daughter of the said writer joined TCS in August 20013 as an Engineer on probation. In three months time on joining, she gave birth to a child. She was not entitled to maternity leave as per law. She made an application for loss of pay leave. The application went to approval by RATAN TATA. RATAN TATA asked a question on her application, which rule in our company stops her from becoming a mother and sanctioned her a leave with full pay with respect to her motherhood.
Every corporate or company unfortunately we do not have RATAN TATA. We should have RATAN TATA in every corporate or company.
I am aware that this posting of mine has no relevance to the current thread but I thought this incident is worth knowing by us and fit to share with you.
From India, Mumbai
Hi,
Appreciate the views raised by Mr. Ravi.
Your friend has not yet been accepted as an employee, so the 80 days at 4th month rule does not apply yet.
If SBI recruits her late & do not allow the full maternity leave benefits, as per applicable rules; then would she be comfortable to perform the job in coming months before & after delivery? This is the decision she has to take, understanding the full responsibility & consequences. Just because this is a rare opportunity, does not mean she should be overworking herself mentally & phisically in this situation. Also, as this is a government organisation, one should not consider that they can possibally take undue advantage of the relax policies.
There has to be understanding of personal preferences vs. professional preferences. Some people do manage their professional duties ignoring their effects on personal life.... also vice-versa. these are personal preferences, but both these cases provide win-lose scenarios for either employee or employer. This takes out the 'satisfaction' from the job.
If she is tough enough to handle both factors satisfactorily, then there should be no law restricting the employment (As already suggested by many responses above).
Congratulate your friend & best of luck for her personal & professional life ahead... :-)
Best Regards,
Amod.
Appreciate the views raised by Mr. Ravi.
Your friend has not yet been accepted as an employee, so the 80 days at 4th month rule does not apply yet.
If SBI recruits her late & do not allow the full maternity leave benefits, as per applicable rules; then would she be comfortable to perform the job in coming months before & after delivery? This is the decision she has to take, understanding the full responsibility & consequences. Just because this is a rare opportunity, does not mean she should be overworking herself mentally & phisically in this situation. Also, as this is a government organisation, one should not consider that they can possibally take undue advantage of the relax policies.
There has to be understanding of personal preferences vs. professional preferences. Some people do manage their professional duties ignoring their effects on personal life.... also vice-versa. these are personal preferences, but both these cases provide win-lose scenarios for either employee or employer. This takes out the 'satisfaction' from the job.
If she is tough enough to handle both factors satisfactorily, then there should be no law restricting the employment (As already suggested by many responses above).
Congratulate your friend & best of luck for her personal & professional life ahead... :-)
Best Regards,
Amod.
Hi,
Sorry for repeat posts.... Something wrong with the connection & with each refresh of the page, the post was repeated, which I notices quite late...
Requyest to site administrator to remove multiple responses above.
Thanks!
Amod.
Sorry for repeat posts.... Something wrong with the connection & with each refresh of the page, the post was repeated, which I notices quite late...
Requyest to site administrator to remove multiple responses above.
Thanks!
Amod.
Right to motherhood is every women's right and dream unless the organization clearly stated that they needed unmarried women only. In that case, any women if failing to disclose her martial status at the time of application/ interview/ entry and carrying pregnancy during the interview/ application process and hiding it, can be rejected. It may rather be called a case of making false disclosure or furnishing a false info.However,if there was no such stipulation or restriction for being a married candidate, there cannot be any bar on joining as a pregnant women. A married women is expected to carry a pregnancy.
I think we are missing the bigger issue. A married women had qualified interview etc for joining the Army Medical Corps as a Dr. On the day of reporting or say joining, she was carrying one month old baby which she had conceived much after clearing her interview. The Army Medical Corps rejected her joining on the ground of pregnancy. She went to Supreme Court (SC). SC not only issued a decision clearing her way to join the medical corps but sent a message across to all, stating that mother hood is the right of every women. If and when required under such circumstances, the date of joining may be postponed but no women can be deprived of a job on this ground. It will rather a discriminatory HR practice.
Jai Hind
From India, Karol Bagh
I think we are missing the bigger issue. A married women had qualified interview etc for joining the Army Medical Corps as a Dr. On the day of reporting or say joining, she was carrying one month old baby which she had conceived much after clearing her interview. The Army Medical Corps rejected her joining on the ground of pregnancy. She went to Supreme Court (SC). SC not only issued a decision clearing her way to join the medical corps but sent a message across to all, stating that mother hood is the right of every women. If and when required under such circumstances, the date of joining may be postponed but no women can be deprived of a job on this ground. It will rather a discriminatory HR practice.
Jai Hind
From India, Karol Bagh
Pregnancy can not be the reason for rejection on medical ground on initial appointment for the case under discussion. However subsequent maternity benefit will be governed by the applicable rules in vogue.
From India, Delhi
From India, Delhi
A woman has a right to be pregnant and none can deny her motherhood. She can only be denied a job or joining for one if she had furnished false facts against if asked so at the time of application or interview. If there was no such column to furnish such details and a women becomes pregnant between selection and joining, she will join. During one of such cases last year where a lady became pregnant just before joining join army in the medical branch, was restricted on similar ground. She went to SC. The SC simple said that 'All women have right to motherhood and she cannot be denied joining for the job selected. She joined.
From India, Karol Bagh
From India, Karol Bagh
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Brown, Aceyjay - Lie Like A Woman.pdf
Woman pps.ppt
Lifeexplained-m an-N-WOMAN.jpg