Maternity Benefit: Time to reconceptualize it?

A pregnant woman walks the ramp during a programme in New Delhi (Photo:IANS)

The Maternity Benefit Bill, 2016 suggests 26 weeks as permissible amount of leaves for a woman employee (up to 2 children) in an organization. This is more than twice the leave period permitted by the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. While the Bill tries to fit itself within the “progressive” framework espoused by many political parties and individuals in recent times, it, however, has turned a deaf ear to the voice of the employers. Surprisingly, the various supporters of the bill, especially the women don’t realize that this can herald an abrupt end of their present and future employment. Further, this can significantly undermine the expansion and effectiveness of the Govt.’s ambitious Startup India programme. In defense of these inferences, I will scout pieces of evidence from history, especially from the first series of debates that took place in the Bombay Legislative Council in 1929.

It must be mentioned at this juncture that although India ratified 15 ILO conventions between 1924 and 1947, the maternity law convention did not see an easy acceptance upon introduction in the early 1920s. Rather, it was often shown the door on technical grounds. Finally, it was able to cross over to the discussion phase when Shri R. S. Asavale introduced it as a “humanitarian measure.” This was also well echoed by Shri K. F. Nariman who mentioned some disreputable happenings in the city of Bombay, where women delivered on streets on their way to work. Thanks to such positioning, the bill did not see a ready rejection with the Government, the representatives of the Bombay and Ahmedabad Mill Owners Association (BAMOA), and the Indian Merchant’s Chambers (IMC).

The supporters of the bill (i.e. the Labour Representatives like Shri N. M. Joshi) positioned it as a patriotic duty to the mothers of the Nation (i.e. working women). Especially they wanted to reduce, and possibly eradicate, infant mortality, which according to them occurred for women were untrained in western hygienic practices as well as unavailable for their children owing to their work. They wished to end “maternal ignorance” through this bill, and provide access to the working women on hygiene, nutrition, and childcare, in line with the West. The women were viewed as progenitors of children who will possibly help the Nation achieve the grand vision of Swaraj. To nullify the opposition, doctors like Shri P. G. Solanki quoted the Hindu Shastras, elaborating the rules for the pregnant woman (like not climbing steps, not walking on uneven ground, not doing manual work, etc.). He called upon the mill owners and the merchants to give up thinking on “pies, Annas, and rupees” and invest in the health of their workers. He argued that healthy workers are productive workers.

In response to the supporters, the opponents of the Bill (principally the BAMOA, and IMC) cited the sustainability argument. They took the debate to another level by citing that the inefficiency of the workers, coupled with the competition from Lancashire, Manchester, and Japan, made bearing this additional expense (which they termed as “tax”) impossible. Shri Lalji Naranji (IMC) blamed the Labour representatives for their short-sightedness and in their inability to foresee the financial repercussions that would accompany the bill. The representatives of BAMOA were more unsparing and unambiguous. They spelled out their possible actions if the bill were to pass,

“We shall reduce the number of women workers. We shall cut down the wages, or we shall do away with women labour altogether. Who will be affected thereby? The women and their families themselves. It is human nature. Sir, when employers are forced to pay an additional tax for their women labourers, they will resort to doing away with female labour altogether, or reduce its wages, or reduce its numbers.”

The Government batted for both the parties. According to Sir Ghulam Hussain, he “supports the bill,” meaning the idea guiding it, but was against the position that the employer would bear the cost. According to him, “proposing an additional tax on the indigenous industry” of the Presidency of Bombay, would amount to “killing it outright, increasing unemployment and aggravating depression.”

Even a new narrative was initiated (one of the chief exponents of it being Mr. M. K. Dixit), which ultimately held the husband responsible for the pregnancy of the woman, thereby making him liable for the relevant expenses. With the then prevalent social construction of the working class man usually being a drunken individual habituated to wife beating and addicted to sexual liaisons, it was argued that this bill would provide indirect support to his unhindered baby-producing spree. Hence it was presented that the benefits of the bill be limited to unmarried women. The supporters of the bill contested this by stating that the meager income of the men forced them to drink and their women to work. Hence it was even more necessary that such bill is passed with the Government bearing the cost (some suggested a sharing of cost between the employer and the Government) and ensuring that the assured benefits reach the rightful beneficiaries.

A select committee revisited the bill with these arguments, and finally, on 15th March 1929, it was revealed that the burden would be borne by the employers. Shri Lalji Naranji reacted, “If labour is disconnected and if they are not prosperous, capital suffers. But labour suffers if capital is not prosperous. Benefits should be given without hurting anyone”. However, as a relief, it was decided to administer the bill only for the factories that had women on its roll. Nevertheless, a strong threat was given that if the employers were found to engage in unfair labour practices (like dismissing women, reducing wages, etc.), every Govt. machinery would be used to extract money from them. This put the employers on the back foot, for no one wanted a third party (in this case Govt.) to moderate terms between them and the workers. It undermined control. The bill passed with the Maternity Benefit Act seeing the light of the day.

What is apparent is that the supporters of the law had demanded it then for providing superior healthcare and hygiene to the women. With healthcare relatively cheaper and of superior quality in recent times, I think it will be a progressive step if women receiving a gross pay of at least Rs. 21000/-, spearhead a movement to forsake their salary during the period of leave (provided they are with a partner who is earning). This will require extensive planning from both the partners but is doable. It will also be a great boon for the industry amounting to significant savings. With startups blossoming everywhere, the proposed law posits as a threat to their existence. It will amount to destruction of homegrown firms and erode their resources. Envisage a situation where a start-up is bearing half a year’s pay for an absent (however legitimate) employee. It will amount to disbursement of funds to non-productive assets. This, in turn, will lessen the attractiveness for women as potential employees. It is not very difficult to visualize the warning given by mill owners in 1929 on the floor of Bombay Legislative Council to come true.

Instead, freeing up organizations from such costs will help them contribute to greater national good. E.g. the Indira Gandhi Matritva Sahayog Yojana (IGMSY) is conceptualized to compensate women for the loss of wages and to ensure that a mother can afford rest after a delivery and take care of health requirements of the new born child. Similarly, the Janani Suraksha Yojana supports child birth in an institution by providing financial assistance to women below the poverty line. However, the budget allocation for the schemes is very limited and many times have been criticized as insufficient. Organizations can be invited to contribute here as CSR activity, for a tax benefit. Last, freeing up organizations from mandatorily providing well off women employees’ maternity payouts will encourage them to use this provision for talent retention. Organizations will go out of their way to design competitive maternity benefit plans that will help women in the long run. A definite win-win for all.

Ref: All the quotations of the Bombay Legislative Council debates and partial reasoning is borrowed from Chhachhi A. (1998).  Who Is Responsible for Maternity Benefit: State, Capital or Husband? Bombay Assembly Debates on Maternity Benefit Bill, 1929. Economic and Political Weekly, 33(22): L21 – L29