Case Name: National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) vs. Smt. S Anitha Joseph
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 11915 of 2024
Date: 20th November, 2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna S Dixit , Hon’ble Mr. Justice C M Joshi
FACTS OF THE CASE
It has been filed along with the writ petition for challenging an order passed in Original Application No. 38/2023 dated 14th February, 2024 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench by National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences challenging the impugned direction upon NIMHANS to issue Child Care Leave to Smt. S Anitha Joseph, for a period of 120 days from 14th January 2023 to 14th May 2023. The respondent is an ICU nurse who filed for CCL to look after her child. NIMHANS refused the application citing difficulties in operational functions in the ICU. The petitioner contended that such leave was supposed to be granted on discretion and further contended that granting the leave would inconvenience the essential services.
ISSUE OF THE CASE
Whether the refusal by NIMHANS to the above respondent for Child Care Leave justified with regard to nature of employment, employer’s discretion, and the constitutional mandate of the welfare state?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India
Powers vesting in the high court to enable exercise of writ jurisdictions and supervise or direct the lower courts and tribunals.
- Rule 43C, CCS Leave Rules, 1972
provides Child Care Leave to women employees and even one male employee. Article 21.
- Constitution of India
Right to Life has been explained to include mother’s and child’s rights that respect nursing and care.
- Article 42 of the Constitution of India
Directive Principles relating to working conditions and maternity relief. Grounds of the Appellant NIMHANS
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER
In Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, Rule 43C uses the term such that “may be granted” means leave may or may not be granted based on the need of the employer at the time of operational requirement. They further claim that Child Care Leave of 120 days granted to the respondent, that is, the critically crucial ICU nurse, undermines the very basic principle and requirements of patient care in addition to draining off valuable service streams. The petitioner further contended that leave is no natural right of the employee but there exists administration consideration and the case denial can be justified with a functional need of the hospital.
In addition, they had relied on judicial precedents which provided that the judiciary would interfere with the administrative order relating to leave very less.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT
She pleaded her right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Under it, rights to care for the child and to do motherly duties like breast feeding came. She was of the opinion that Child Care Leave was really a special category of leave intended to look after the child and the mother. A right instead of a privilege. NIMHANS has more than 700 nurses, 70% women. She could well believe that her two odd days of leave would not have even a fraction of an influence on the way the work of the ICU is run. She then again referred to the international conventions to which she was signatory stating there, in her utterances about provisions for caring for breastfeeding and maternity to support her argument. Thus, it is illustrative of the tension imposed judicially in between the organizational operational needs and the welfare of employees placed under the welfare state frame.
ANALYSIS
It provides constitutional and legal mandates toward women and children’s rights, especially in Child Care Leave, as a true tool that shapes humane working conditions. The reliance of the Court on Articles 21 and 42 of the Constitution further underlines the importance of interpreting laws in such a way that fundamental rights and social justice are given precedence over rigid administrative discretion. In holding the challenge to the operations of NIMHANS not well established, this court had shown that operational feasibility cannot override a valid right of an employee unless well established by evidence. First, judgment in the context of international conventions and medical studies puts India in tandem with the expectations of the rest of the world toward maternal and child care. Again, this judgment has a pluralistic approach toward labor laws and reiterates that state establishments need to act as role models for others as model employers whose benchmark sets workers’ rights in public employment.
JUDGEMENT
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by NIMHANS and upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the petitioner to grant Child Care Leave to the respondent. Since the court held that NIMHANS is a state entity, therefore, it has to be an ideal employer and must evince considerable sensitivity towards the needs of the women employees more particularly as regards maternity and childcare. It found that the provisions on Child Care Leave had to be construed with Articles 21 and 42 that constituted constitutional principles under which paramount importance had to be granted to the welfare of women and children. The argument of the respondent on that count that she might need temporary absence due to operational disorganization in the ICU was rejected since data pertaining to the number of its workers was not furnished with supporting data. Also, the rationale of the judgment on international conventions and medical evidence put forward for establishing elementary rights of nursing mothers is much more vital to the health of the mother and also to the child. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed, and the order passed from the CAT be complied by NIMHANS forthwith.
CONCLUSION
The High Court reiterates the importance of Child Care Leave for both the mother as much as for the child. It shows that state authorities are concerned with the protection of social justice and humane working conditions postulated in the principles of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed with an order requiring NIMHANS to give effect to the order by CAT expeditions without cost. Judgment warns judges, “they also have roles in upholding the constitutional rights and International standards pertaining to employee’s rights and interest.”.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY RICHA PANDEY
