Copyright © 2026 Authors retain the copyright of this article. This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

@article{205779,
        author = {DHEENESHWARI.P and G.surabika and N. Saranya and Siva mohana sundaram .S},
        title = {MATERNITY BENEFIT ACT},
        journal = {International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology},
        year = {2026},
        volume = {13},
        number = {1},
        pages = {8105-8110},
        issn = {2349-6002},
        url = {https://ijirt.org/article?manuscript=205779},
        abstract = {The intersection of womanhood and labour markets has historically been fraught with tension, balancing biological imperatives of procreation against the relentless demands of industrial productivity. In India, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1947 (hereafter "the Act") represents the legislative conscience of a nation attempting to reconcile these opposing forces. Enacted even before the dawn of the Republic, this welfare legislation was designed to protect the dignity of motherhood by ensuring the continuity of income and employment security for women in the organised sector. However, nearly eight decades later, the Act stands at a critical crossroads. While the 2017 Amendment dramatically expanded the scope of entitlements introducing 26 weeks of paid leave and mandatory crèche facilities the implementation gap remains a chasm. This paper undertakes a doctrinal and social legal reassessment of the Act. It traces the historical trajectory of maternity protection from the colonial Factory Acts to the post-liberalisation economy, scrutinises the constitutional validity of the burden placed on "establishments," and critically evaluates the exclusion of the vast informal labour market. The paper argues that while the Maternity Benefit Act is a progressive masterpiece on paper, its efficacy is diluted by fiscal federalism issues, a lack of universal coverage, and a judicial interpretation that has often prioritized textual rigidity over social context. Ultimately, this article advocates for a shift from an "employment based" model to a "citizenship based" social security framework to truly honour the constitutional promise of equality under Article 14 and 15.},
        keywords = {},
        month = {June},
        }