Journalist wins third court appeal against Zee News

 

Justice N.M.Jamdar of the Bombay High Court has upheld a journalist’s contention that she was wrongfully dismissed during her pregnancy by Zee News. Justice Jamdar said the taking away of the relief granted to her by the Labour and Industrial Court at Mumbai would ‘result in the failure of justice’.

The order, marking yet another milestone in the saga of the struggle of the Zee News journalist against her termination, is also significant for its affirmation of the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, in particular Section 12 of the Act, which ‘makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge or dismiss a woman employee during her pregnancy’.

The services of the journalist were terminated on August 19, 2012, barely a month after she intimated to Zee News that she was pregnant. She challenged the termination and, in two successive orders, the Labour Court, Mumbai and the Industrial Court, Mumbai, dated 11 April 2014 and 13 February 2015 respectively, granted interim relief to her. But Zee News challenged both these orders and Justice Jamdar’s ruling was on Zee’s challenge. In his order, Justice Jamdar said:

“The right of protection of service during the maternity period is essential to ensure equality at the workplace for a woman employee. The right of maternity protection is envisaged under various International Human Rights and Labour Conventions, and it is statutorily implemented in India through the Act of 1961.

There is a growing increase in the women's participation at the workplace, especially in the urban areas. There is also an increase in the awareness to provide a conducive working environment for women. Strict implementation of the Act, which ensures a healthy and stress free environment for a working woman, cannot be emphasized enough.

Arbitrary termination of service during the maternity period, such as the present one, not only affects the concerned woman employee, but creates a sense of despair and disillusionment amongst the working women in general. Keeping the underlying object of the Act of 1961 in mind, both the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned orders, treating the termination as an exceptional circumstance, warranting an interim relief at this stage”.

On 11 April 2014, the Sixth Labour Court in Mumbai ordered her reinstatement as an interim measure and the payment of wages according to what she received prior to the termination. Alternatively, the judge said, 50 per cent of the wages were to be deposited in court.

Zee News filed a revision application before the Industrial Court on the grounds that the order was illegal and perverse in law and facts. They denied any unfair labour practices. However, on February 13, 2015, the Industrial Court, Mumbai, dismissed the revision application. The company said that final relief had been granted at an interim stage which, they contended, was impermissible. Besides, Zee contended,the journalist used her pregnancy to cover up her lapses at work.

In his order, Justice Jamdar, on the issue of interim relief, observed that it had to be determined whether the circumstances of the present case warranted grant of such a relief and in any case, the company could give the journalist 50 per cent of the wages if they did not want her to return to work.

In her petition, the journalist had detailed the harassment she faced from the company’s human resources manager on telling him of her marriage and subsequent pregnancy. Zee responded by writing to tell her that her performance was not up to the mark even though it had earlier given her increments for her good work. The journalist demanded an enquiry into the human resources manager’s conduct but Zee sacked her.