INTRODUCTION
Women’s participation in India’s workforce has grown steadily over the past decades, yet significant challenges remain, particularly for mothers returning to work after childbirth. Despite constituting nearly 26% of the total workforce, women face barriers such as workplace bias, limited flexible work options, and career stagnation.1 Chapter VI of the Code on Social Security, 2020 (Sections 59 to 72),2 which consolidates and strengthens maternity benefit provisions, entitles eligible women to 26 weeks of paid maternity leave for the first two surviving children (12 weeks for subsequent children), along with progressive measures such as creche facilities for establishments with 50 or more employees, nursing breaks until the child attains 15 months of age, protection against dismissal during maternity-related absence, medical bonus, and benefits for adoptive and commissioning mothers. These provisions were designed to provide comprehensive maternity protection and ensure job security for working mothers. However, the effectiveness of Chapter VI in enabling seamless workplace reintegration continues to be uncertain, especially in sectors with weaker enforcement mechanisms or limited awareness of the law.
Examining reintegration post-maternity leave is critical for promoting gender equality and creating inclusive work environments. Understanding how mothers navigate the transition back to work, the barriers they encounter, and employer practices is essential for ensuring that the legal provisions under Chapter VI translate into meaningful workplace support. This research seeks to evaluate the real-world impact of Chapter VI of the Code on Social Security, 2020, highlight implementation challenges, and propose measures for enhancing its effectiveness.
The objectives of the study are threefold: to assess the effectiveness of Chapter VI of the Code on Social Security, 2020 in facilitating workplace reintegration, to identify barriers faced by working mothers despite the legal protections, and to examine how employers across different sectors interpret and implement the provisions of the Chapter. The study addresses the following research questions: (1) To what extent do the provisions under Chapter VI of the Code on Social Security, 2020 ensure effective workplace reintegration? (2) What barriers do working mothers face despite the legal safeguards? (3) How do employers interpret and implement Chapter VI across different sectors?
Recent surveys underscore the relevance of this study. Data from Aon reveals that 75% of working mothers experience career setbacks lasting one to two years post-maternity leave, and nearly 40% report reductions in earnings3. In addition, a significant proportion of women employed in the unorganised sector remain unaware of their rights under the Code, leading to inconsistent application and non-compliance by employers. These findings highlight the need for a comprehensive examination of how maternity benefits under Chapter VI translate into real workplace support and the structural reforms required to enable effective reintegration of mothers into the workforce.
A. Literature Review
The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, amended in 2017, marked a significant legislative step toward enhancing maternity protection in India. However, with the enactment of the Code on Social Security, 2020, the provisions relating to maternity benefit have been consolidated and strengthened under Chapter VI (Sections 59 to 72).
Several studies have critically examined the provisions, implementation challenges, and experiences of working mothers under the previous regime, offering valuable insights that remain relevant for evaluating Chapter VI of the Code.
Chaudhary, N. S. (2025). Qualitative Analysis of Employee and Employer Perspectives on India’s Maternity Benefit Act. International Journal of Organizational Analysis.4 This study employs Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) to explore the perceptions of female employees and employers regarding maternity benefits. It highlights the challenges faced by working mothers during reintegration and the varying attitudes of employers toward compliance. The findings underscore the need for a balanced policy approach that addresses both employee needs and employer constraints — issues that persist under the new Code.
Ghosal, P., Chauhan, S., Ramesh, P., Panchal, C., Mgolombane, M., & Mallampalli, L. N. (2025). Impact of the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 on Women’s Workforce Participation in India (2014–2024). Indian Institute of Social and Political Research5. This article critically examines the impact on India’s diverse female workforce. While improvements in maternity leave were noted in the formal sector, the study reveals persistent limitations due to non-compliance, lack of awareness, and weak enforcement, especially in the informal sector. It calls for comprehensive reforms, many of which the Code on Social Security, 2020 seeks to address through unified mechanisms and wider applicability.
Chadha-Sridhar, I., & Myer, G. (2021). Feminist Reflections on Labour: The ‘Ethics of Care’ within Maternity Laws in India.Manupatra6This paper offers a theoretical critique of maternity laws from a feminist perspective. It argues that while the framework represents a progressive step, it inadequately addresses the ‘ethics of care’ and the disproportionate unpaid care work performed by women. The study advocates for a more inclusive approach that recognises care as a shared societal responsibility — a concern that continues to be examined in the context of the new Code.
Rajeev, P. (2025). Reality of Women Workers under the Maternity Benefits Act. Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences7. This paper analyses the practical difficulties faced by women workers in accessing benefits, including a lack of awareness, employer resistance, and bureaucratic hurdles, particularly in rural and informal settings. It emphasises that such barriers undermine the law’s objectives and calls for targeted interventions, many of which are now reflected (though not fully operationalised) in Chapter VI of the Code.
Reddy, B., & Thakur, A. (2023). Implication of Maternity Benefit Act in Real World Organisations. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities. 8This research explores organisational implementation and associated challenges. It stresses the importance of creating supportive workplace cultures to aid reintegration — a goal that the Code attempts to advance through clearer duties of employers and the Inspector-cum-Facilitator mechanism.
Emerging scholarship on the Code on Social Security, 2020 itself includes analyses such as “Maternity Benefits under the Code on Social Security 2020: The Legal Framework and Limitations” (Bhandari & Bharadwaj, 2024) and “Maternity Rights in Transition: Gaps under Social Security Code, 2020” (2026). These works note that while Chapter VI consolidates and slightly expands protections (e.g., work-from-home flexibility and potential coverage for unorganised workers via government schemes), it largely mirrors the previous Act without introducing radical structural changes. Critics highlight gaps in implementation, limited clarity on extending benefits to gig/platform workers, dependence on notified schemes for the unorganised sector, and concerns over draft rules that may dilute creche and other facilities.
Despite these valuable insights, significant research gaps persist. Most studies remain rooted in the pre-Code era (Maternity Benefit Act framework). There is limited empirical data on the actual implementation and impact of Chapter VI since its notification. Existing literature often focuses either on the legal framework or on lived experiences, with insufficient integration of both. Sectoral differences, regional disparities, challenges in the informal/gig economy, and employer perspectives (especially from MSMEs) remain underexplored under the new unified Code. Addressing these gaps is crucial for developing a holistic understanding of the effectiveness of Chapter VI and for formulating evidence-based strategies to improve workplace reintegration for mothers.
B. Research Methodology
This study adopts a mixed-method approach, combining doctrinal and empirical research to provide a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of Chapter VI (Maternity Benefit) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 in facilitating workplace reintegration for mothers. The integration of both approaches allows the study to examine the legal framework under the Code and its practical impact on working women across different sectors.
The doctrinal component involves a detailed analysis of the statutory provisions contained in Chapter VI (Sections 59 to 72) of the Code on Social Security, 2020. This includes reviewing the corresponding provisions on paid maternity leave, creche facilities, nursing breaks, protection against dismissal, medical bonus, benefits for adoptive and commissioning mothers, duties of employers, and the role of Inspector-cum-Facilitator. The doctrinal study also examines judicial interpretations, government notifications, draft rules, policy reports, and existing scholarly literature. It aims to understand the intended scope of these provisions, the legal obligations imposed on employers, and the enforcement mechanisms available under the unified Code.
The empirical component focuses on the lived experiences of working mothers returning to work after maternity leave. Data collection will be conducted through semi-structured interviews with women employed in the public, private, and informal sectors. These interviews are designed to capture detailed insights into the challenges, perceptions, and experiences of women regarding workplace reintegration, employer compliance with Chapter VI of the Code, and organisational support.
A purposive sampling method will be used to ensure representation across different sectors, job levels, and organizational types. This approach allows for the inclusion of participants who can provide rich and relevant data related to the research objectives.
Data analysis will be carried out using thematic analysis, which involves identifying, analyzing, and reporting recurring themes and patterns from the interviews. This process will help in understanding the common barriers faced by working mothers, as well as strategies that facilitate successful reintegration under the new legal framework.
Ethical considerations are central to the research design. All participants will provide informed consent, ensuring that their participation is voluntary. Confidentiality will be maintained throughout the study, and personal identifiers will be anonymized to protect privacy. These measures are intended to create a safe environment for participants to share their experiences openly.
By combining doctrinal and empirical methods, this study seeks to bridge the gap between the legal provisions under Chapter VI of the Code on Social Security, 2020 and real-world practice, offering a nuanced understanding of how these provisions function in theory and practice.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND POLICY REVIEW
Chapter VI (Maternity Benefit) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 (Sections 59 to 72) establishes a comprehensive and consolidated legal framework for the protection of women during and after pregnancy. This Chapter subsumes and strengthens the earlier Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, by providing enhanced maternity protections applicable to establishments employing ten or more employees. Key provisions include:
• Paid maternity leave of 26 weeks for the first two surviving children and 12 weeks for subsequent children (Section 60(3)).9
• Benefits for adoptive and commissioning mothers, providing 12 weeks of leave (Section 60(4)).10
• Work-from-home options by mutual agreement after the maternity leave period (Section 60(5)).11
• Payment of medical bonus of ₹3,500 if the employer provides no free pre-natal or post-natal care (Section 64).12
• Additional leave for miscarriage or medical termination (6 weeks) and tubectomy operations (2 weeks) (Section 65).13
• Nursing breaks (two breaks daily) until the child is 15 months old (Section 66).14
• Mandatory crèche facilities for organizations with 50 or more employees, including four daily visits (Section 67).15
• Protection against dismissal during maternity-related absence (Section 68). 16
The Code also mandates timely payment of maternity benefits (Section 62) 17and specifies eligibility criteria, generally requiring the woman to have worked for at least 80 days in the preceding twelve months (Section 60(2)).18It further imposes clear duties on employers (Section 71) 19and empowers the Inspector-cum-Facilitator to ensure compliance and direct payments where necessary (Section 72). 20
Judicial interpretations, though largely delivered under the erstwhile Maternity Benefit Act, continue to reinforce these protections and remain relevant under the new Code. Courts have consistently held that maternity benefits are statutory entitlements rooted in Article 42 21of the Constitution, and any denial constitutes discrimination and a violation of labour rights. For instance, in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), AIR 2000 SC 1274,22the Supreme Court underlined the employer’s duty to provide maternity benefits without penalizing the employee’s career progression. Policy debates have also focused on aligning India’s maternity laws with International Labour Organization (ILO) standards, particularly concerning extended leave, gender equality, and comprehensive support for working mothers.
Despite these progressive provisions, a significant gap remains between the law and its practical implementation. Many employers, particularly in small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) and in the informal sector, either lack awareness of Chapter VI or view compliance as a financial and administrative burden. Moreover, while the Code attempts to broaden coverage, a large portion of women in the informal and gig economy still remain inadequately protected due to dependence on government-notified schemes. Even where creche facilities are mandated, implementation is often inadequate, and monitoring mechanisms through the Inspector-cum-Facilitator system are yet to become fully effective, limiting the real-world impact of the provisions in facilitating seamless workplace reintegration.
WORKPLACE EXPERIENCES AND REINTEGRATION CHALLENGES
The reintegration of women into the workforce after maternity leave is shaped by a combination of legal, organisational, and cultural factors. Interviews conducted with working mothers across public, private, and informal sectors reveal a spectrum of experiences that highlight both the successes and limitations of Chapter VI (Maternity Benefit) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 in practice.
In India, female advocates practicing independently or in small law firms continue to face significant challenges regarding maternity protection. The Bar Council of India does not mandate maternity leave for practising advocates, leaving them without statutory support during pregnancy or postpartum periods. Unlike salaried employees covered under Chapter VI of the Code on Social Security, 2020, these self-employed women must often continue working to sustain their income, risking health and professional setbacks. The absence of formal provisions creates financial and career vulnerability, as they have no guaranteed leave, job security, or client protection during maternity. This gap highlights a broader issue: many self-employed and gig workers remain largely unprotected under the current framework, underscoring the need for more inclusive policy reforms.
Women employed in the unorganised sector face the most severe challenges when returning to work after childbirth. This sector includes domestic workers (such as housemaids), daily wage labourers, agricultural workers, and other informal employees. For housemaids and similar workers, maternity leave and benefits are virtually non-existent because Chapter VI primarily applies to establishments employing ten or more persons, leaving informal households and small employers largely outside its direct scope. Many women in this sector remain unaware of their entitlements under the Code and must navigate pregnancy and postpartum responsibilities without institutional support. They frequently experience unpaid leave, delayed assignments, job insecurity, or loss of livelihood, reflecting the limited reach of Chapter VI beyond the formal sector. Although the Code contemplates extension of benefits to unorganised workers through government schemes, implementation in this area remains weak.
Female professors in academic institutions report challenges in balancing teaching, research, and administrative responsibilities upon returning from maternity leave. While statutory provisions under Chapter VI exist, practical support such as flexible scheduling, reduced workload, or reliable access to creche facilities is often insufficient. This creates pressure to maintain pre-maternity performance levels without adequate institutional accommodation, adversely affecting both career progression and professional satisfaction.
In the corporate sector, experiences vary widely depending on organisational culture and resources. Multinational companies and larger firms tend to offer structured maternity policies that go beyond the minimum requirements of Chapter VI, including extended leave, flexible working hours, remote work options, and creche support. However, smaller private firms often view the mandated maternity benefits as a financial or operational burden, leading to subtle discrimination, delayed promotions, or exclusion from key projects. Interviews reveal that even in companies with formal policies, many women feel reluctant to fully utilise the 26 weeks of paid leave or other entitlements due to fear of negative career repercussions.
Public sector organisations generally provide the most consistent support. Employees in government departments report better adherence to the provisions of Chapter VI, including timely maternity leave, access to creche facilities where mandated, and more structured reintegration processes. Despite this, challenges such as rigid hierarchical structures, societal expectations around caregiving, and limited awareness of rights under the Code still impact women’s experiences to some extent.
Employer attitudes remain a critical determinant of successful reintegration. Supportive workplaces that offer flexible schedules, remote work options, mentoring programs, or on-site childcare enable smoother transitions, allowing mothers to maintain productivity and career trajectories. Conversely, unsupportive environments exacerbate stress, reduce performance, and in some cases, push women out of the workforce entirely.
These findings indicate that while Chapter VI of the Code on Social Security, 2020 provides a progressive legal framework for maternity protection, including paid leave, creche facilities, nursing breaks, and protection against dismissal, its effectiveness in ensuring meaningful workplace reintegration is heavily contingent upon sectoral context, organisational culture, and genuine employer engagement. Legal provisions alone cannot guarantee successful reintegration; effective enforcement, workplace flexibility, cultural change, and broader coverage for the unorganised sector are essential to create environments where working mothers can truly thrive after maternity leave.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF BARRIERS AND GENDER EQUITY
The reintegration of women into the workforce after maternity leave is influenced not only by statutory provisions but also by structural, institutional, and cultural barriers that affect gender equity in employment. While Chapter VI (Maternity Benefit) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 provides a consolidated legal framework for maternity protection, its effectiveness is limited without proper alignment with broader constitutional guarantees and effective implementation mechanisms.
Constitutional Framework: The Indian Constitution enshrines principles that support gender equality and maternity protection. Article 14 23guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination based on sex. Article 15(3) 24specifically empowers the State to make special provisions for women, including maternity benefits. Article 21, 25the right to life and personal liberty, has been expansively interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to a dignified and safe working environment, health, and maternity relief. These constitutional provisions establish a clear mandate for gender-sensitive workplace policies and equitable reintegration of mothers after availing maternity benefits under Chapter VI of the Code on Social Security, 2020.
Structural Barriers: Despite constitutional and statutory guarantees under Chapter VI, women across sectors continue to face structural obstacles such as weak enforcement mechanisms, limited awareness of rights, and inadequate coverage for informal and self-employed workers. The provisions of Chapter VI primarily apply to establishments employing ten or more persons, leaving housemaids, domestic workers, daily wage labourers, agricultural workers, and other unorganised sector employees largely without direct statutory protection. This exclusion makes them vulnerable to unpaid leave, job loss, and exploitation. Similarly, practicing female advocates and many gig/platform workers remain outside the formal ambit of the Code, as the Bar Council of India does not mandate maternity benefits, forcing them to navigate pregnancy and reintegration without guaranteed support.
Institutional Barriers: In formal employment, institutional policies often fall short of fully accommodating returning mothers. Many corporate workplaces provide the minimum 26 weeks of paid maternity leave mandated under Section 60 of the Code but lack meaningful flexible schedules, remote work options, reduced workloads, or mentoring programs post-leave. Academic institutions frequently impose rigid teaching and research expectations, making it difficult for female professors to balance professional responsibilities with childcare. Even in public sector organisations, where compliance with Chapter VI is generally better, hierarchical structures and limited creche facilities often hinder smooth career progression after maternity leave.
Cultural Barriers: Deep-rooted societal norms continue to reinforce the expectation that women should prioritise caregiving over professional commitments. Employers may perceive returning mothers as less committed or less available, leading to subtle discrimination, delayed promotions, exclusion from high-visibility projects, and the so-called “motherhood penalty.” These biases significantly undermine the protective intent of Chapter VI.
Impact on Gender Equity: Collectively, these structural, institutional, and cultural barriers hinder the full realisation of constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15(3), and 21, and limit the transformative potential of Chapter VI of the Code on Social Security, 2020. Women returning from maternity leave often experience slowed career progression, wage stagnation, reduced opportunities, and in extreme cases, exit from the workforce. Achieving meaningful reintegration requires not only strict statutory compliance but also the development of supportive workplace cultures, proactive employer engagement, effective monitoring by Inspector-cum-Facilitators, and societal recognition of caregiving responsibilities as a shared social duty rather than an individual female burden.
Therefore, strengthening the implementation of Chapter VI of the Code on Social Security, 2020, aligning it more effectively with constitutional principles, and addressing structural, institutional, and cultural barriers are essential for ensuring equitable professional opportunities and advancing gender justice in the Indian workplace.
COMPARATIVE STUDY AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON MATERNITY BENEFITS
A comparative study of maternity benefits highlights how legal frameworks and social policies can support working mothers more effectively when protections are extended across all sectors. Unlike India, where Chapter VI (Maternity Benefit) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 primarily covers women in formal establishments employing ten or more employees, countries such as Sweden, Norway, and Canada provide comprehensive maternity and parental benefits with broader coverage, including self-employed and informal workers, ensuring greater equity and smoother workforce reintegration.
Sweden: Sweden offers up to 480 days of paid parental leave, which can be shared between mothers and fathers. Benefits are accessible to employees across all sectors, including self-employed individuals. Employers are encouraged to provide flexible working arrangements such as part-time work, remote options, or phased return-to-work schedules. Strong societal support, including state-funded childcare, ensures that women can reintegrate into the workforce without significant career penalties.26
Norway: Norway guarantees extensive maternity and paternity leave with high wage replacement rates and strong job protection. The system emphasises flexible schedules and shared parental responsibilities. Public infrastructure, including accessible childcare services, significantly reduces the caregiving burden on women and promotes gender equity. These policies enable smooth reintegration and help prevent mothers from experiencing long-term professional setbacks after childbirth.27
Canada: Canada provides maternity and parental benefits through a publicly funded system available to all employees, regardless of employer size. Both parents are entitled to benefits, fostering shared caregiving responsibilities. The system ensures financial security during leave and facilitates workforce reintegration without risking employment or career growth.28
Lessons for India: Comparative analysis highlights several key areas for improvement in India’s maternity benefit framework under Chapter VI of the Code on Social Security, 2020:
1. Sector-wide Coverage: Extending the benefits of Chapter VI to informal and self-employed workers, including domestic workers, housemaids, agricultural labourers, gig workers, and practicing advocates, through universal schemes or mandatory government-supported mechanisms.
2. Flexible Work Arrangements: Strengthening provisions for part-time work, remote work, and phased return-to-work options (beyond the existing mutual agreement clause in the Code) to better accommodate caregiving responsibilities.
3. Shared Parental Responsibility: Introducing robust paternity or shared parental leave policies to distribute childcare responsibilities more equitably and reduce the disproportionate career impact on women.
4. Supportive Social Infrastructure: Expanding access to affordable, quality childcare facilities and public support services to complement the creche mandate under Section 67 of the Code and facilitate smoother reintegration.
Countries with inclusive maternity protections demonstrate that strong legal guarantees, supportive workplace policies, and robust social infrastructure collectively enable women to return to work safely, maintain career trajectories, and achieve greater gender equity. Adopting similar measures in India could significantly enhance the effectiveness of Chapter VI of the Code on Social Security, 2020, particularly for women in the informal and self-employed sectors, and help bridge the existing gap between statutory protections and real-world outcomes.
KEY FINDINGS
The study combines doctrinal and empirical research to evaluate the effectiveness of Chapter VI (Maternity Benefit) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 in facilitating workplace reintegration for mothers in India. The key findings are as follows:
1. Strength of the Legal Framework: Doctrinal analysis confirms that Chapter VI of the Code on Social Security, 2020 provides strong statutory protections for women in formal employment. Key provisions include 26 weeks of paid maternity leave for the first two surviving children (12 weeks thereafter), protection against dismissal during maternity-related absence (Section 68), nursing breaks until the child attains 15 months (Section 66), medical bonus, benefits for adoptive and commissioning mothers, and mandatory creche facilities for establishments with 50 or more employees (Section 67). Judicial interpretations, such as K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors (2025 INSC 781),29reinforce that maternity benefits are statutory entitlements rooted in constitutional guarantees, and any denial constitutes discrimination and a violation of labour rights.
2. Gaps in Coverage and Implementation: Empirical research highlights significant gaps between the legal provisions under Chapter VI and practical realities. Women in the informal sector, including domestic workers, housemaids, daily wage labourers, and practicing advocates, remain largely unprotected, as Chapter VI primarily applies to establishments employing ten or more persons. Even in the formal sector, compliance varies widely, with smaller organisations and some private firms failing to fully implement the mandated leave period, creche facilities, nursing breaks, or flexible work arrangements. The Inspector-cum-Facilitator mechanism introduced under the Code is yet to become fully effective in ensuring uniform compliance.
3. Sectoral Differences in Reintegration:
• Public Sector: Generally better adherence to the provisions of Chapter VI, including timely paid leave and structured reintegration support, though rigid hierarchical structures may still limit long-term career growth.
• Corporate Sector: Wide variation depending on organisational culture. Larger firms and multinational companies often exceed the minimum requirements of the Code by offering flexible schedules and remote work, while smaller firms frequently treat maternity benefits as a financial burden, leading to subtle discrimination or incomplete implementation.
• Academic Sector: Female faculty face rigid workloads and limited institutional flexibility, making it difficult to balance teaching, research, and caregiving responsibilities even after availing benefits under Chapter VI.
• Informal Sector: Women bear the entire cost of childcare and reintegration, facing high risk of job loss, unpaid leave, or reduced earnings, with minimal access to the protections provided under the Code.
4. Structural, Institutional, and Cultural Barriers:
• Structural: Weak enforcement mechanisms, low awareness of rights under Chapter VI, and limited coverage for self-employed, gig, and informal workers.
• Institutional: Lack of flexible schedules, mentoring programs, adequate creche facilities, or supportive post-maternity policies in many workplaces.
• Cultural: Deep-rooted societal expectations and gender norms continue to pressure women to prioritise caregiving, resulting in subtle discrimination, delayed promotions, and slowed career progression (the “motherhood penalty”).
5. Lessons from International Comparisons: Countries like Sweden, Norway, and Canada provide comprehensive maternity and parental benefits that extend to self-employed and informal sector workers, offer flexible reintegration options, and promote shared parental responsibilities. These models demonstrate that extending coverage beyond formal employment, combining legal entitlements with flexible work policies, and providing strong social infrastructure significantly improve reintegration outcomes and gender equity.
6. Overall Impact on Gender Equity: Despite the progressive provisions under Chapter VI of the Code on Social Security, 2020, many working mothers continue to experience delayed promotions, reduced opportunities, wage stagnation, and career setbacks after maternity leave. The findings reveal that legal provisions alone are insufficient. Organisational culture, effective enforcement, societal attitudes, and inclusive policies extending to the unorganised sector are critical for translating statutory protections into meaningful gender equity in the workplace.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To address these challenges, the following measures are recommended:
1. Strengthening Enforcement Mechanisms: The Inspector-cum-Facilitator system introduced under the Code should be made more effective through regular inspections, stricter penalties for non-compliance, and faster grievance redressal. Clear guidelines and timelines for implementing creche facilities (Section 67), nursing breaks (Section 66), and protection against dismissal (Section 68) must be strictly enforced across all covered establishments.
2. Supportive Workplace Policies: Employers should be encouraged (and incentivised through tax benefits or recognition schemes) to adopt progressive policies beyond the minimum requirements of Chapter VI. These include flexible work schedules, remote work options, phased return-to-work programs, reduced workloads post-maternity, and mentoring initiatives for returning mothers.
3. Extension of Coverage: Urgent steps must be taken to extend maternity benefits to informal and self-employed workers, including domestic workers, housemaids, agricultural labourers, gig and platform workers, and practising advocates. This can be achieved through government-notified schemes, contributory social security funds, or mandatory inclusion under Chapter VI with appropriate modifications.
4. Awareness and Capacity Building: Nationwide awareness campaigns targeting both employers and employees are essential to bridge knowledge gaps regarding rights and obligations under Chapter VI. Special focus should be given to women in rural and informal sectors.
5. Enhanced Social Infrastructure: Greater investment is needed in affordable, quality childcare facilities and public creche services to complement the statutory mandate under the Code and reduce the caregiving burden on mothers.
6. Promotion of Shared Parental Responsibility: Introduction of mandatory paternity leave or shared parental leave policies would help distribute childcare responsibilities more equitably, reduce the “motherhood penalty,” and promote gender equity in the workplace.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this study demonstrates that legal provisions alone are insufficient to ensure meaningful workplace reintegration for working mothers. While Chapter VI of the Code on Social Security, 2020 offers a progressive statutory foundation — with enhanced leave periods, creche facilities, nursing breaks, and protections for adoptive mothers — structural, institutional, and cultural barriers continue to hinder gender equity and career advancement.
Sectoral disparities, inconsistent organisational practices, weak enforcement in the informal sector, and deep-rooted societal expectations around caregiving collectively limit the full potential of the maternity benefit provisions. Lessons from international best practices in countries such as Sweden, Norway, and Canada reveal that inclusive policies covering all sectors, flexible work arrangements, shared parental responsibilities, and strong social infrastructure lead to far better reintegration outcomes and sustained workforce participation by mothers.
Implementing these strategies in India would significantly strengthen the impact of Chapter VI of the Code on Social Security, 2020, particularly for women in informal and self-employed sectors. It would help transform maternity protection from a mere legal entitlement into a meaningful guarantee of continued professional participation and gender equality in the workplace.
Future research should focus on the actual implementation of Chapter VI post-notification, evaluate the effectiveness of the Inspector-cum-Facilitator mechanism, assess the impact of any new paternity or shared parental leave policies, and conduct comparative studies to identify best practices suitable for the Indian context. Only through sustained legal, policy, and societal reforms can India create truly inclusive workplaces that support working mothers effectively.
*****
Footnotes
1. Press Information Bureau, India’s Workforce Transformation: A Rising Tide of Female Participation, PIB WEBPAGE (Nov. 18, 2024), https://www.pib.gov.in/FeaturesDeatils.aspx?NoteId=153426&ModuleId=2.
2. Code on Social Security, §§ 59–72, No. 36, Acts of Parliament, 2020 (India).
3. Vasudha Mukherjee, Maternity Penalty: 75% Mothers Face Career Hurdles After Leave, BUSINESS STANDARD (Oct. 13, 2025), https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/maternity-penalty-75-mothers-face-career-hurdles-after-leave-report-124081000274_1.html
4. N. S. Chaudhary, Qualitative Analysis of Employee and Employer Perspectives on India’s Maternity Benefit Act, 33 INT’L J. ORG. ANALYSIS 45, 45–62 (2025).
5. P. Ghosal et al., Impact of the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 on Women’s Workforce Participation in India (2014–2024), 12 Int’l J. Org. Analysis 101, 101–20 (2025).
6. Chadha-Sridhar & G. Myer, Feminist Reflections on Labour: The “Ethics of Care” within Maternity Laws in India, 8 Indian J.L. & Soc’y 55, 55–72 (2021).
7. P. Rajeev, Reality of Women Workers under the Maternity Benefits Act, 17 J. Legal Rsch. & Juridical Sci. 23, 23–40 (2025).
8. B. Reddy & A. Thakur, Implication of Maternity Benefit Act in Real World Organisations, 6 Int’l J.L. Mgmt. & Human. 78, 78–95 (2023).
9. Code on Social Security, §60(3), No. 36, Acts of Parliament, 2020 (India).
10. Code on Social Security, §60(4), No. 36, Acts of Parliament, 2020 (India).
11. Code on Social Security, §60(5), No. 36, Acts of Parliament, 2020 (India).
12. Code on Social Security, §64, No. 36, Acts of Parliament, 2020 (India).
13. Code on Social Security, §65, No. 36, Acts of Parliament, 2020 (India).
14. Code on Social Security, §66, No. 36, Acts of Parliament, 2020 (India).
15. Code on Social Security, §67, No. 36, Acts of Parliament, 2020 (India).
16. Code on Social Security, §68, No. 36, Acts of Parliament, 2020 (India).
17. Code on Social Security, §62, No. 36, Acts of Parliament, 2020 (India).
18. Code on Social Security, §60(2), No. 36, Acts of Parliament, 2020 (India).
19. Code on Social Security, §71, No. 36, Acts of Parliament, 2020 (India).
20. Code on Social Security, §72, No. 36, Acts of Parliament, 2020 (India).
21. India Const. art. 42.
22. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), AIR 2000 SC 1274,
23. India Const. art. 14.
24. India Const. art. 15(3)
25. India Const. art. 21
26. Øresunddirekt, Parental Leave in Sweden, ØRESUNDDIREKT (Oct. 12, 2025), https://www.oresunddirekt.dk/en/working-in-sweden/family-parenting/parental-leave-in-sweden
27. Kristian, Maternity Leave in Norway: A Complete 2025 Guide, NORWAY EXPAT (Oct. 12, 2025), https://norwayexpat.com/maternity-leave-in-norway/.
28. Psyche Castillon, How Maternity and Paternity Leaves Work in Canada, THIRDSAIL (Oct. 12, 2025), https://www.thirdsail.com/article/how-maternity-and-paternity-leaves-work-in-canada
29. K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors ,(2025 INSC 781)