One of my clients recently had a case which I am explaining below and if you are stuck in such similar situation, here is what to do.
Note: Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot disclose complete case details or identify the actual parties involved. However, I am sharing the essential facts and legal approach so that if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can understand the available solutions and legal remedies.
TL;DR: A private employer cannot simply refuse maternity benefit to a woman who is covered by the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. If the establishment employs ten or more persons and she has worked the qualifying period, she is entitled to 26 weeks of paid leave for her first two children, and a refusal can be challenged before the labour authority or in a civil suit. A well-drafted legal notice often settles the matter before any case is filed.
Ananya Kulkarni was seven months pregnant when the email arrived. Her manager at the Pune firm where she worked as a senior analyst had forwarded a two-line note from HR: the company's maternity policy, it said, offered "twelve weeks of unpaid leave at management's discretion." She had applied in early February 2025. The reply came in mid-March.
She and her husband Rohit did what most people do first. Emails to HR. A call to the HR head. A polite written request for the policy document. The policy arrived, and it was worse than the email. It said nothing about 26 weeks. It did not mention the Maternity Benefit Act at all.
By then she was 32 weeks along. Rohit's cousin, a chartered accountant in Mumbai, suggested a labour lawyer. The first consultation they took was with a general practice firm in Pune, and the advice was thin: send a notice, see what happens. That is where most of these matters stall. Rohit then arranged a call with the Chamber of Advocate Sudhir Rao, and the file finally moved.
Within a week, a legal notice went out setting out the statutory entitlement, the qualifying period she had completed, and the penal consequences of contravention. The company's counsel replied within ten days. Before the month was out, the employer agreed to grant the full benefit for the balance period and to treat the earlier absence as paid leave. Advocate Sudhir Rao's expertise in this domain helped secure the order in favour of the client without a single court hearing.
Key Facts of the Case
- The employer is a private limited company; whether the Act applies at all turns on whether the establishment employs ten or more persons.
- The employee's claim was for 26 weeks of paid maternity leave under Section 4 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
- The company's internal policy offered only twelve weeks of unpaid leave, which falls below the statutory floor.
- The rejection came in writing from HR after the leave application had been submitted.
- Eligibility under the Act depends on having worked at least 80 days in the twelve months preceding the expected date of delivery.
- The company reversed its position only after a legal notice spelling out the entitlement and the penal consequences under Section 27 of the Act.
- No suit was filed. The dispute was resolved at the notice stage, which is the cheapest and fastest route when the employer is willing to read the statute.
The Direct Legal Answer
Maternity Benefits Denied by a Private Company: Is That Legal?
Usually not. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 applies to every establishment with ten or more employees, whether it is a government office or a private limited company. If it applies, the employer cannot offer less than what the Act gives. An internal policy that is less generous than the statute is simply unenforceable to that extent.
Section 4 gives 26 weeks of paid maternity leave for the first two children, of which no more than eight weeks may be taken before the expected