Maternity Benefit Act In Schools And Colleges? Allahabad High Court Asks UP Govt To Clarify Notification

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to clarify what steps it has taken to implement the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as amended in 2017, in relation to educational institutions, while hearing a petition filed by Sunbeam Women's College challenging an order granting maternity benefits and reinstatement to an employee.

A division bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi observed that the state had become a necessary party to the proceedings in view of its statutory obligation to notify the Act, if applicable.

The petitioner college had challenged an order passed by the concerned commission directing reinstatement of a woman employee and extending benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The institution contended that the commission exceeded its jurisdiction in granting such relief, as the Act does not automatically apply to educational institutions.

Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that under the proviso to Section 2(1) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, the Act applies to establishments only if the concerned state government issues a notification in the official gazette with the approval of the central government. According to the petitioner, no such notification has been issued by the state of Uttar Pradesh extending the Act to educational institutions.

In support of this submission, reliance was placed on a Kerala High Court judgment in Chairman, PSM College of Dental Science & Research Bye Pass Road vs. Reshma Vinod and Others (2024).

Extracting relevant portions from that decision, the Allahabad High Court noted that the Kerala High Court had held that educational institutions do not fall within the definition of “establishment” under the Shops and Establishments Act.

The Kerala High Court, in turn, had relied upon a Supreme Court ruling which clarified that while an educational institution may constitute an “industry” for certain purposes, it would not qualify as an “establishment” carrying on business, trade or profession under the Shops and Establishments Act. The distinction between “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act and “establishment” under Shops and Establishments legislation was emphasised.

Recording the petitioner’s submissions, the Allahabad High Court observed that the question required consideration. The bench further noted that since the state government was under an obligation to notify the Act for the benefit of persons working in establishments, its stand was essential for adjudication of the controversy.

Accordingly, court permitted impleadment of the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Additional Chief Secretary, Secondary Education, Lucknow, as respondent no. 6. The Additional Chief Standing Counsel was directed to accept notice on behalf of the newly impleaded respondent.

Court directed the State Government to file an affidavit specifying what action, if any, had been taken to implement the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, particularly after its amendment in 2017.

All respondents have been granted four weeks to file detailed counter affidavits, with two weeks thereafter for filing rejoinders, if any.

In the meantime, court ordered that status quo as on date shall be maintained regarding the employment of respondent no. 5 with the petitioner institution.

The petition has been listed for final disposal on 23 March 2026. The bench clarified that the matter would be decided on the next date fixed and that no unnecessary adjournment would be granted to either side.

Case Title: Sunbeam Women's College vs. Union Of India And 4 Others

Order Date: February 3, 2026

Bench: Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi