Karnataka HC stays govt’s new menstrual leave policy for women employees
The petitioners said the government, with its November 20 notification, had introduced a new category of leave without any statutory backing
Hours after restraining the State Government from enforcing the new menstrual leave policy for women employees across industries, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday recalled its own stay order and said it will hear the State government on December 10.
Justice Jyoti M, had issued an interim stay order on Tuessday morning while hearing two separate petitions, one by the Bangalore Hotels Association and another, by a private hospitality firm, Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems.
However, the judge recalled recalled the interim order after the Karnataka Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty mentioned the matter before the Court before the lunch break at 1.30 pm and urged that the stay order be reconsidered.
The AG said he will argue on the State’s behalf on the next hearing. Justice Jyoti M recorded the same and agreed to lift the stay order until the State is heard. She noted that there existed an “urgency in the matter,” and posted it for “further hearing on interim relief” on December 10.
The Karnataka government had issued the notification on November 20 this year, mandating that every industrial establishment registered under the Factories Act, the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, the Plantation Labour Act, the Beedi and Cigar Workers Act, and the Motor Transport Workers Act give women employees “one paid menstrual leave every month.”
Also Read: Karnataka approves paid menstrual leave for women: What you need to know
The government order covered permanent, contract and outsourced workers as well. As per the notification, women did not need to submit a medical certificate, and they had to use the leave within the same month.
The Bangalore Hotels Association, which as per the petition, represents over 1,500 “hotels, restaurants, bakeries, sweet shops and ice cream parlours,” across the city. Claimed that several labour laws already govern workplace leave and that such laws do not provide for menstrual leave.
The petitioners said the government, with its November 20 notification, had introduced a new category of leave without any statutory backing. They also claimed the government had not consulted employers before announcing a policy that could impose significant financial and administrative burdens.
Advocate Prashant BK, who appeared for the association, told the Court that none of the statutes governing these establishments authorise the State government to mandate menstrual leave through an executive notification.
He argued that each employer should decide its own HR policies.
Justice Jyoti M then asked the State whether it had heard the industry before issuing the notification. The government’s lawyer said it had not. The judge then granted an interim order staying the policy.
The Court directed the government to file its statement of objections and said it could later seek a modification of the order. The Court will take up the matter for further hearing in January this year.
Both the petitioners have urged the Court to strike down the notification as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
