The Maternity Benefits (Amendment) Bill 2016, likely to come up for clearance in the Lok Sabha in the winter session, invites cautious enthusiasm. It covers only the organised sector which constitutes no more than 5 per cent of working women. And though the Bill is forward looking and extends maternity benefits to this section from the current 12 weeks to 26 weeks, it excludes agricultural labour, domestic workers, those in home-based occupations, street vendors and care-givers. It ignores ASHA workers who represent provide maternal healthcare in rural India.
A study by PRS Legislative Research, a Delhi-based policy think tank, brings into focus the inequity in maternity benefits between the organised and unorganised sectors. In 2015, the Law Commission of India had recommended that the provisions of the original Maternity Benefits Act 1961 be expanded to cover all women,including those work in conditions that are unstructured and could have more than one employer.. Then, why was such an important recommendation ignored?
Apart from the 1961 Act, there are at least eight labour laws that extend maternity benefits. These include the Employees’ State Insurance Act 1948, the Building and other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act 1996, and the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act 2008. Why weren’t these merged with the 1961 Act to make one single law for all categories?
Even in the present amendments there are key areas of concern. For instance, will increasing maternity leave to 26 weeks act as a deterrent to women being preferred for jobs when employers have to bear the full burden of paid leave? How will a non-discriminating employment policy be ensured? Hence, a funding mix involving the state is imperative. Given these gaps, our parliamentarians would do well to closely scrutinise the changes proposed and consider the narrow ambit of the Bill before giving their assent. Let the Lok Sabha not rush through it.
Associate Editor