Home > Recent Judgements > Legal Setback for Labour Reforms: Karnataka High Court Stays Government Order Mandating Menstrual Leave in Registered Industrial Establishments
Dec 09- 2025
Legal Setback for Labour Reforms: Karnataka High Court Stays Government Order Mandating Menstrual Leave in Registered Industrial Establishments
CASE TITLE: BANGALORE HOTELS ASSOCIATION (R) & ANR. V. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Introduction
In a significant interim development on Tuesday 9th December, the Karnataka High Court has stayed the State Government’s 20 November 2024 notification mandating one day of paid menstrual leave every month for all women employees permanent, contract, and outsourced working in registered industrial establishments.
The notification, which sought to make menstrual leave compulsory across sectors governed by labour welfare statutes, faced immediate challenge from industry associations, resulting in the High Court’s intervention.
Background of the Government Notification
The Karnataka Government had issued an executive notification directing all industrial establishments registered under:
- The Factories Act, 1948
- Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act
- Plantations Labour Act
- Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act
- Motor Transport Workers Act
to mandatorily grant one paid menstrual leave day per month to women employees.
The Government positioned this directive as a welfare measure aimed at promoting gender-sensitive working conditions. However, industrial bodies expressed concerns regarding its statutory basis, procedural propriety, and economic impact, paving the way for litigation.
The Petition: Key Grounds of Challenge
The petition was filed by:
- Bangalore Hotels Association, representing about 1,540 member establishments, and
- Management of Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems Ltd.
The core arguments raised were:
- Absence of Legislative Authority
The petitioners argued that none of the governing labour statutes contain provisions for compulsory menstrual leave.
The existing framework under these statutes already provides:
- Annual leave
- Casual leave (typically capped at 10–12 days)
- Holidays and weekly offs
Hence, an executive notification could not impose a new category of leave without statutory backing.
- Violation of Natural Justice
Petitioners contended that:
- No preliminary notification was issued.
- No stakeholder consultation was undertaken.
- Industry bodies were not heard before issuing a directive with financial and operational implications.
This was argued as a violation of the principles of natural justice.
- Financial and Operational Burden
The introduction of menstrual leave, particularly in labour-intensive industries employing large numbers of women, was argued to cause:
- Additional wage outflows
- Potential productivity disruptions
- Scheduling and manpower management challenges
Thus, it amounted to imposing serious civil consequences without lawful authority.
- Ultra Vires Article 14
The petition also invoked Article 14, arguing that:
- The notification was arbitrary and discriminatory.
- It created an unequal classification amongst employers without intelligible differentia or legislative backing.
- Mandatory Leave Already Covered by Model Standing Orders
The petition highlighted that:
- Clause 9 of the Model Standing Orders under the Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules mandates employers to provide leave as contemplated under the Factories Act and other laws.
- Clause 10 permits up to 10 days casual leave, with the discretion left to the employer.
Thus, menstrual leave was neither contemplated nor permitted as an additional compulsory category under these rules.
The Court’s Interim Order
Justice Jyoti M issued the interim stay with the following observations:
- The Government Advocate was directed to accept notice and file objections.
- The Court noted that the Government had not heard the management before issuing the notification.
- Liberty was granted to parties to seek modification of the stay.
- The matter will be relisted after the winter vacation.
The stay means that industrial establishments are not required to provide menstrual leave until further orders.
Legal Issues Emerging from the Case
- Can an Executive Order Create New Leave Entitlements?
A major legal question is whether the State Government can introduce new categories of leave through executive action when:
- The parent statutes do not contemplate such leave, and
- Labour welfare codes constitute a comprehensive legislative framework.
This may ultimately require the Court to examine the scope of delegated executive power.
- Obligation to Consult Stakeholders
Labour and employment regulations typically require:
- Consultation
- Preliminary notification
- Opportunity for objection
Industry bodies argue that bypassing these steps invalidates the order.
- Balancing Employee Welfare and Economic Realities
This case will test the judiciary’s approach to:
- Progressive gender-sensitive welfare measures, versus
- The financial viability and statutory compliance structure for employers.
- Potential for Judicially Recognised Menstrual Leave Norms
While menstrual leave is being discussed globally, Indian courts have so far stayed away from mandating it, citing:
- Policy considerations
- Potential discrimination
- Legislative domain concerns
This case may shape India’s jurisprudence on menstrual leave in the industrial sector.
To Sum up the whole case
The Karnataka High Court has stayed the State Government’s notification mandating one paid menstrual leave day per month for women employees in industrial establishments. The petitioners argued that the order lacks statutory backing, violates natural justice, imposes financial burden, and is ultra vires Article 14. The Court observed that managements were not heard before the notification was issued, and directed the Government to file objections. The stay will continue until the matter is heard post-winter vacation.