The Court agreed to hear the matter further on Wednesday, 10 December.
Published Dec 09, 2025 | 12:49 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 09, 2025 | 4:02 PM
Karnataka's Labour Department, on 12 November, notified the menstrual leave policy, mandating employers to provide 12 days of paid menstrual leave per year (one leave per month).
Synopsis:The stay came after a petition filed by the Bangalore Hotels Association and Management of Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems Limited. The petitioners argued that “the statutes under which the industries operate provide comprehensive leave policy. None of the statutes has provisions mandating menstrual leave”.
Hours after an interim order was passed by the Karnataka High Court, on Tuesday, 9 December, staying a state government notification entitling women employees in various establishments to avail one paid menstrual leave each month, Justice Jyoti M has recalled the order.
Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty representing the state mentioned the matter before the Court’s lunch break and urged the judge to reconsider its stay order.
The Court agreed to do so and said it would hear the matter further on Wednesday, 10 December.
Earlier on Tuesday, the high court stayed the government notification that mandated industrial establishments to provide one day of paid menstrual leave every month to all women staff members employed on a permanent, contractual, or outsourced basis.
The earlier stay came after a petition filed by the Bangalore Hotels Association and Management of Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems Limited. The petitioners argued that “the statutes under which the industries operate provide comprehensive leave policy. None of the statutes has provisions mandating menstrual leave”.
The petitioners further argued that establishments were registered under various laws, such as the Factories Act, Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, Plantations Labour Act, the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, and the Motor Transport Workers Act, and the leaves are restricted to 12 days per annum.
They claimed that there was a comprehensive statutory framework through the aforesaid statutes mandating the employers to provide sufficient leave to the employees.
“However, the notification issued by the state government is not supported by any legislative enactment,” they argued.
The petitioners claimed that the government was not empowered to issue an executive order, directing industrial establishments to provide menstrual leave.
The Bench then asked whether the government had heard the management before issuing the notification. When the counsel replied in the negative, the court passed the interim order.
“The Government Advocate to accept notice for the respondent, there shall be an interim order as prayed for, liberty to seek modification of the order. Government to file a statement of objections, relist after winter vacation,” Justice Jyoti M had said while ordering the interim stay.
