ALKA SARIN,J. - (1.) Heard through video conferencing.
(2.) The challenge in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned orders dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure P-2) and 30.03.2021 (Annexure P-4). Vide the impugned order Annexure P-2 passed by respondent No.2, the application filed by respondent No.3 was allowed and directions were given to the petitionerBank to pay her the maternity benefits and the petitioner-Bank was also directed to comply with the provisions of the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 meticulously in future. Vide impugned order Annexure P-4, the appeal filed by the petitioner-Bank against the order Annexure P-2 was dismissed by respondent No.1.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the present case the service conditions of the employees of the petitionerBank are governed by the Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 (for short, 'the Service Regulations of 1979') and that these regulations have been made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 19 read with sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 by the Board of Directors of the petitioner-Bank in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government and have the force of law. According to the learned counsel, the Service Regulations of 1979 would have precedence over the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Maternity Benefit Act'). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Bank would contend that the authorities below have ignored Regulation No.36 contained in the Service Regulations of 1979 which provides for maternity leave for its female employees/staff and have instead upheld the contention of respondent No.3 that she would be entitled to the maternity benefits as per the Maternity Benefit Act as amended by the Maternity Benefits (Amendment) Act, 2017.;