Thank you Mr.Korgaonkar for drawing my attention to the thread. At the same time, I am also very sorry for my inordinately delayed response.
Well; your interpretation of sec.5(2) of the Maternity Benefit Act,1961 seems to be based on two presuppositions viz., (1)subsisting employment of the woman in the same establishment for a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery and (2) rendering a qualifying service of not less than 80 days in the 12 months of her employment in the establishment.
Sorry, I beg to differ with your above interpretation. As the entitlement to maternity benefit under the Act has to be reckoned with from the date of expected delivery only, it is actually a calculation in backward stride and for that purpose the Statute furnishes a unit of measure of 12 months period preceding the date of expected delivery and imposes 80 actually worked days as qualifying service within that unit of measure for the entitlement of maternity benefit. As you rightly observed, 80 days can be completed even at a stretch during 3 months of one's employment in the same establishment;even it can be of broken spells due to the reasons mentioned in the explanation to the sub-section. Logically, therefore, the emphasis is on the completion of the qualifying service of 80 days, may be at a stretch or otherwise, immediately preceding the date of expected delivery and not on the unit of measure of 12 months. It is immaterial whether the claimant happens to be in the employment of the establishment for the entire 12 months preceding the date of her expected delivery.
My interpretation is based on the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court in Ramakrishna Ramnath v. Labor Court [1970 LLJ (2) 306] and Surendrakumar Verma v. C.G.I.T -cum-Labor Court, NewDelhi [1981(1)LLJ 386] on continuous service u/s 25B of the I.D Act,1947.