K’taka HC recalls stay order on Govt’s menstrual leave directive

HOurs after restraining the mysore regime from enforcing the young catamenial provide policy for women employees across industries, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday recalled its own stay order and said it will hear the government on December 10.On Tuesday morning, Justice Jyoti M issued an interim stay order while hearing two separate petitions, one by the Bangalore Hotels Association and another, by a private hospitality firm, Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems.Then, in the afternoon, the judge recalled the interim order after Karnataka Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty mentioned the matter before the Court and urged that the stay order be reconsidered.The AG said he will argue on the state’s behalf during the next hearing. Justice Jyoti M recorded the same and agreed to lift the stay order until the state is heard. She noted that there existed an “urgency in the matter,” and posted it for “further hearing on interim relief” on December 10.The Karnataka government issued the notification on November 20 this year, mandating that every industrial establishment registered under the Factories Act, the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, the Plantation Labour Act, the Beedi and Cigar Workers Act, and the Motor Transport Workers Act give women employees “one paid menstrual leave every month.”The government order covered permanent, contract and outsourced workers. As per the notification, women did not need to submit a medical certificate, and they had to use the leave within the same month.The Bangalore Hotels Association, which claims to represent over 1,500 “hotels, restaurants, bakeries, sweet shops and ice cream parlours,” across the cit said that several labour laws already govern workplace leave and that such laws do not provide for menstrual leave.The petitioners said the government, with its November 20 notification, has introduced a new category of leave without any statutory backing. They also claimed the government had not consulted employers before announcing a policy that could impose significant financial and administrative burden.Advocate Prashant BK, who appeared for the association, told the court that none of the statutes governing these establishments authorise the state government to mandate menstrual leave through an executive notification.He argued that each employer should decide its own HR policies.Justice Jyoti M then asked the state whether it had heard the industry before issuing the notification. The government’s lawyer said it had not. The judge then granted an interim order staying the policy.Hours later, at the state’s urging, the judge recalled the order.