My Wife Joined a company on 01.07.2018 and working continuously till date. Company has a policy for confirmation in 6 months which happen based on multiple internal criteria fulfillment.
During probation or unconfirmed period employee is not entitled with any sick leave or paid leave (except public holiday).
In the month of October’18 she conceived and informed office immediately with all required document. At that moment she is still in probation period. During her second month pregnancy because of physical problem the treating doctor advised for one month complete bed rest. Since she was not confirmed by then, she had to take LOP during November 2018. She again joined in December’18 and continued her office till now (she is in third trimester now).
Meanwhile confirmation which was supposed to happen in the end of December’18, extended one month because LOP of November 2018.
Now confirmation which was supposed to happen by the end of January’18, delayed again for one more month, because she received an HR warning in-between because of some minor argument with an another lady employee who reported complaint to HR against my wife. Later complaint was not proved and withdrawn.
Now at the end of March’19, in confirmation meeting, she received a feedback about company apologies for not confirming her till now and company will not able to confirm her still because they want to check her ability in an live project which company doesn’t have right now, so one the project will come they will put my wife in that project and give feedback for confirmation.
She now released company is intentionally not confirming her so that they will not provide paid ML and force het to go for LOP of 6 month.
From India, Chennai
During probation or unconfirmed period employee is not entitled with any sick leave or paid leave (except public holiday).
In the month of October’18 she conceived and informed office immediately with all required document. At that moment she is still in probation period. During her second month pregnancy because of physical problem the treating doctor advised for one month complete bed rest. Since she was not confirmed by then, she had to take LOP during November 2018. She again joined in December’18 and continued her office till now (she is in third trimester now).
Meanwhile confirmation which was supposed to happen in the end of December’18, extended one month because LOP of November 2018.
Now confirmation which was supposed to happen by the end of January’18, delayed again for one more month, because she received an HR warning in-between because of some minor argument with an another lady employee who reported complaint to HR against my wife. Later complaint was not proved and withdrawn.
Now at the end of March’19, in confirmation meeting, she received a feedback about company apologies for not confirming her till now and company will not able to confirm her still because they want to check her ability in an live project which company doesn’t have right now, so one the project will come they will put my wife in that project and give feedback for confirmation.
She now released company is intentionally not confirming her so that they will not provide paid ML and force het to go for LOP of 6 month.
From India, Chennai
Dear Anony,
Any woman who has worked for a minimum of 80 days preceding the date of her delivery is eligible for maternity benefits as per the act. Whether confirmed or not, she is eligible for maternity benefits.
Regards
Rahul
From India, Delhi
152Any woman who has worked for a minimum of 80 days preceding the date of her delivery is eligible for maternity benefits as per the act. Whether confirmed or not, she is eligible for maternity benefits.
Regards
Rahul
From India, Delhi
In order to be eligible for maternity leave confirmation is not an issue because probation and confirmation are purely depended on the company's decision. However, having worked for 80 days will not qualify or maternity leave. To my interpretation this 80 days working (including all paid leaves, holidays and weekly off days) should be there during 12 months preceding the expected date of delivery. The significance of "during 12 months preceding" is very important. If you take the case of an employee under ESI scheme she will not get the benefit if she had not worked for 70 days in two contribution periods, each contribution period comprising of 6 months. There is one more condition and that is the benefit is available during the benefit period only and in the case of new employee it will be 9 months from the start of contribution.
As such, in order to be eligible for maternity leave one should have worked for 12 months and during this 12 months she should have worked for 80 days. If you have any different opinion on this, please share it.
From India, Kannur
As such, in order to be eligible for maternity leave one should have worked for 12 months and during this 12 months she should have worked for 80 days. If you have any different opinion on this, please share it.
From India, Kannur
Dear colleagues,
While I concur with Mr Madhu's comments, I would like comment on the last para of his post.
There are two conditions for eligibility of ML under the MB Act, One is , the concerned female employee should be in the company's employment during preceding 12 months as well as should have worked for 80 days prior the date of delivery.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR-Consultant
From India, Mumbai
While I concur with Mr Madhu's comments, I would like comment on the last para of his post.
There are two conditions for eligibility of ML under the MB Act, One is , the concerned female employee should be in the company's employment during preceding 12 months as well as should have worked for 80 days prior the date of delivery.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR-Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Vinayak ji
"concerned female employee should be in the company's employment during preceding 12 months", is that the correct interpretation of Clause 5(2) of the MB Act or based on any case reference. Please elucidate.
From India, Chandigarh
"concerned female employee should be in the company's employment during preceding 12 months", is that the correct interpretation of Clause 5(2) of the MB Act or based on any case reference. Please elucidate.
From India, Chandigarh
Dear Colleague.
Sorry , my interpretation of preceding 12 months' being in employment prior to the date of delivery is incorrect.
The only condition is she should have worked for at least 80 Days during preceding 12 months prior to the date of her delivery.
Thanks for making me rethink.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR-Consultant.
From India, Mumbai
Sorry , my interpretation of preceding 12 months' being in employment prior to the date of delivery is incorrect.
The only condition is she should have worked for at least 80 Days during preceding 12 months prior to the date of her delivery.
Thanks for making me rethink.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR-Consultant.
From India, Mumbai
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.
Grant of Maternity Benefit Leave to Women Employees Engaged under Outsourcing Policy in Haryana.pdf