Hello Azim,
The Maternity Benefit Act of 1961 does not specify the method for calculating the average number of women employed daily in an establishment. Therefore, in my opinion, in the absence of a statutory guideline, one can use the standard mathematical approach to calculate the average number of women employed daily in an establishment. This calculation should include not only permanent female employees but also those working on a part-time, temporary basis, or through a contractor.
B. Saikumar
In-house HR & IR Advisor
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1931The Maternity Benefit Act of 1961 does not specify the method for calculating the average number of women employed daily in an establishment. Therefore, in my opinion, in the absence of a statutory guideline, one can use the standard mathematical approach to calculate the average number of women employed daily in an establishment. This calculation should include not only permanent female employees but also those working on a part-time, temporary basis, or through a contractor.
B. Saikumar
In-house HR & IR Advisor
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Azim ji,
The response by Saikumar ji is undoubtedly correct. I have also addressed the same query in another thread using my own words.
Additionally, Saikumar ji, it is worth noting that the explanatory notes to the Annual Return under MFR 1963 clearly specify how to determine the average number of workers employed daily.
I believe that as HR professionals, we should conduct our own study on the basics.
Thank you.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The response by Saikumar ji is undoubtedly correct. I have also addressed the same query in another thread using my own words.
Additionally, Saikumar ji, it is worth noting that the explanatory notes to the Annual Return under MFR 1963 clearly specify how to determine the average number of workers employed daily.
I believe that as HR professionals, we should conduct our own study on the basics.
Thank you.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I appreciate Mr. Keshav Ji for this excellent piece of input, which serves as a handy guide on calculating the 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
B. Saikumar
In-house HR & IR Advisor
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
This Sunday morning, I was celebrating by reading some of the old threads, one of which is the current one.
Our Board Moderator, respected Shri. Anil Arora, has nicely concluded this thread.
Once a thread is concluded, especially by a very senior person, it is not appropriate to continue it. However, with the permission of our Board Moderator, I take the opportunity to share what I came across in my reading today in Maharashtra Times, dated today (in Vachak Vishesh i.e. readers' corner).
One of the writers in the readers' corner, in continuation of an article on Maternity Leave published in Maharashtra Times dated 12.04.2015, narrated an incident about maternity leave granted by RATAN TATA to his daughter in 2003, which is as follows:
The daughter of the said writer joined TCS in August 2013 as an Engineer on probation. In three months from joining, she gave birth to a child. She was not entitled to maternity leave as per the law. She applied for loss of pay leave. The application was approved by RATAN TATA. RATAN TATA questioned why any rule in their company should stop her from becoming a mother and sanctioned her leave with full pay in respect of her motherhood.
Unfortunately, not every corporation or company has someone like RATAN TATA. We should have individuals like RATAN TATA in every corporate or company.
I am aware that this post of mine is not directly relevant to the current thread, but I felt that this incident is worth knowing and sharing with you all.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This Sunday morning, I was celebrating by reading some of the old threads, one of which is the current one.
Our Board Moderator, respected Shri. Anil Arora, has nicely concluded this thread.
Once a thread is concluded, especially by a very senior person, it is not appropriate to continue it. However, with the permission of our Board Moderator, I take the opportunity to share what I came across in my reading today in Maharashtra Times, dated today (in Vachak Vishesh i.e. readers' corner).
One of the writers in the readers' corner, in continuation of an article on Maternity Leave published in Maharashtra Times dated 12.04.2015, narrated an incident about maternity leave granted by RATAN TATA to his daughter in 2003, which is as follows:
The daughter of the said writer joined TCS in August 2013 as an Engineer on probation. In three months from joining, she gave birth to a child. She was not entitled to maternity leave as per the law. She applied for loss of pay leave. The application was approved by RATAN TATA. RATAN TATA questioned why any rule in their company should stop her from becoming a mother and sanctioned her leave with full pay in respect of her motherhood.
Unfortunately, not every corporation or company has someone like RATAN TATA. We should have individuals like RATAN TATA in every corporate or company.
I am aware that this post of mine is not directly relevant to the current thread, but I felt that this incident is worth knowing and sharing with you all.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
I appreciate the views raised by Mr. Ravi.
Your friend has not yet been accepted as an employee, so the 80-day rule at the 4th month does not apply yet.
If SBI recruits her late and does not allow the full maternity leave benefits, as per applicable rules; then would she be comfortable to perform the job in the coming months before and after delivery? This is the decision she has to make, understanding the full responsibility and consequences. Just because this is a rare opportunity, does not mean she should be overworking herself mentally and physically in this situation. Also, as this is a government organization, one should not consider that they can possibly take undue advantage of the relaxed policies.
There has to be an understanding of personal preferences versus 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 and best of luck for her personal and professional life ahead... :-)
Best Regards,
Amod.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I appreciate the views raised by Mr. Ravi.
Your friend has not yet been accepted as an employee, so the 80-day rule at the 4th month does not apply yet.
If SBI recruits her late and does not allow the full maternity leave benefits, as per applicable rules; then would she be comfortable to perform the job in the coming months before and after delivery? This is the decision she has to make, understanding the full responsibility and consequences. Just because this is a rare opportunity, does not mean she should be overworking herself mentally and physically in this situation. Also, as this is a government organization, one should not consider that they can possibly take undue advantage of the relaxed policies.
There has to be an understanding of personal preferences versus 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 and best of luck for her personal and professional life ahead... :-)
Best Regards,
Amod.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
Sorry for the repeat posts. There seems to be an issue with the connection, and with each refresh of the page, the post was repeated, which I noticed quite late.
I kindly request the site administrator to remove the multiple responses above.
Thanks!
Amod.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sorry for the repeat posts. There seems to be an issue with the connection, and with each refresh of the page, the post was repeated, which I noticed quite late.
I kindly request the site administrator to remove the multiple responses above.
Thanks!
Amod.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Right to motherhood is every woman's right and dream unless the organization clearly stated that they needed unmarried women only. In that case, any woman failing to disclose her marital status at the time of application, interview, or entry and carrying a 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 false information. However, if there was no such stipulation or restriction for being a married candidate, there cannot be any bar on joining as a pregnant woman. A married woman is expected to carry a pregnancy.
I think we are missing the bigger issue. A married woman had qualified in the interview, etc., for joining the Army Medical Corps as a doctor. On the day of reporting or, say, joining, she was carrying a one-month-old baby which she had conceived much after clearing her interview. The Army Medical Corps rejected her joining on the grounds of pregnancy. She went to the Supreme Court (SC). The SC not only issued a decision clearing her way to join the medical corps but also sent a message across to all, stating that motherhood is the right of every woman. If and when required under such circumstances, the date of joining may be postponed, but no woman can be deprived of a job on this ground. It will rather be a discriminatory HR practice.
Jai Hind
From India, Karol Bagh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I think we are missing the bigger issue. A married woman had qualified in the interview, etc., for joining the Army Medical Corps as a doctor. On the day of reporting or, say, joining, she was carrying a one-month-old baby which she had conceived much after clearing her interview. The Army Medical Corps rejected her joining on the grounds of pregnancy. She went to the Supreme Court (SC). The SC not only issued a decision clearing her way to join the medical corps but also sent a message across to all, stating that motherhood is the right of every woman. If and when required under such circumstances, the date of joining may be postponed, but no woman can be deprived of a job on this ground. It will rather be a discriminatory HR practice.
Jai Hind
From India, Karol Bagh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Pregnancy cannot be the reason for rejection on medical grounds during the initial appointment for the case under discussion. However, subsequent maternity benefits will be governed by the applicable rules in place.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
A woman has a right to be pregnant, and none can deny her motherhood. She can only be denied a job or joining if she had furnished false facts when asked during the application or interview. If there was no column to provide such details, and a woman becomes pregnant between selection and joining, she will join. In one such case last year, a lady became pregnant just before joining the army in the medical branch and was restricted on similar grounds. She went to the Supreme Court. The Court simply stated that 'All women have the right to motherhood and cannot be denied joining the selected job.' She joined.
From India, Karol Bagh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Karol Bagh
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.