MATERNITY BENEFIT (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2016

Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Bill, 2016 passed in the Parliament 

The Bill seeks to increase maternity leave available to working women from the current 12 weeks to 26 weeks for the first two children

The Lok Sabha has passed the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Bill, 2016 today. The Bill had already been passed by the Rajya Sabha during the Winter Session. With this, the Bill stands passed in the Parliament. 

The Bill seeks to amend the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 to provide for the following:-

(i) Maternity leave available to the working women to be increased from 12 weeks to 26 weeks for the first two children.

(ii) Maternity leave for children beyond the first two will continue to be 12 weeks.

(iii) Maternity leave of 12 weeks to be available to mothers adopting a child below the age of three months as well as to the “commissioning mothers”. The commissioning mother has been defined as biological mother who uses her egg to create an embryo planted in any other woman.

(iv) Every establishment with more than 50 employees to provide for crèche facilities for working mothers and such mothers will be permitted to make four visits during working hours to look after and feed the child in the crèche.

(v) The employer may permit a woman to work from home if it is possible to do so.

(vi) Every establishment will be required to make these benefits available to the women from the time of her appointment.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ABETMENT AND CONSPIRACY

Distinction between the offence of abetment and criminal conspiracy. The Supreme Court has held that the distinction between the offence of abetment under the second clause of section 107 and that of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A is that, in the former offence a mere combination of persons or agreement between them is not enough.An act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the conspiracy and in order to the doing of the thing conspired for; in the latter offencethe mere agreement is enough if the agreement is to commit an offence.Section 120-A may be distinguished from Section 34 of I.P.C. The points of distinction between the two are as follows: —Section 34 (Common intention):1. Section 34 applies when a criminal act is done in furtherance of the common intention of all the offenders. 2. Section 34 is a procedural rule; it lays down a principle to determine the criminal liability of persons more than one in the commission of a crime but does not create a subs
Read more

Section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Explained

Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence: This section protects the person making statement during police investigation under duress or inducement. The Code allows police officer to record statements of witnesses with a view to facilitating investigation of the offence. But if such statements are made under duress or inducement, they are rendered inadmissible in evidence because they cannot be said to be free and fair statements made voluntarily. As rightly pointed out by the Apex Court, the object of Section 162 is “to protect the accused both against overzealous police officers and untruthful witnesses.” It cannot be used for corroborating a witness but it can certainly be used to contradict him by a police statement. Where a person appears as a defence witness in a trial, his former statement made before the police cannot be used for contradicting him because it would be against the accepted norms of justice to allow a witness to be contradicted by a s
Read more