A former Zee News employee finds herself locked in a protracted legal tussle with the company after she was fired in August, 2012. She alleges, she was fired after she informed the company that she was pregnant. The case assumes greater significance since it is the first of its kind in the history of Indian media and, thus, will set the precedent for both print and broadcast media.

Shortly after being fired, the journalist challenged the decision in the Labour Court, which ordered her reinstatement as an interim relief measure. Sources have told Newslaundry that she was told by Zee that she would not be allowed to return and that Zee would challenge the order. Zee News then filed a revision application in the Bombay Industrial Court. (Newslaundry has a copy of the Labour Court’s interim order.)

Her case received a shot in the arm recently when, on February 13, 2015, the Industrial Court upheld the earlier Labour Court decision and observed that Zee News’ termination was, prima facie, “violative of Sec 12 of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961”.

The journalist’s advocate Vinod Shetty informed Newslaundry that the Industrial Court has granted Zee a stay on the order until March 20^th. (Newslaundry is in possession of the stay order and the Industrial Court order.) This allows Zee to appeal against the Industrial Court order in the High Court, thus, the already long-drawn-out case will, in all likelihood, continue to drag on.

According to a report in The Hoot, the ordeal began in July 2012 after the journalist informed Zee News’ HR department that she was pregnant. On the 30^th of the same month she received a backdated letter stating that her annual appraisal was not up to the mark. The stress of the situation led to her fainting and she was admitted to hospital on August 3, 2012 with gynaecological complications. When her husband applied for a leave of absence on her behalf for the same, leave was denied. Shortly after this, her employment was terminated with immediate effect through an email dated August 19, 2012.

According to the complainant, she was neither given a month’s notice, nor did she receive any retrenchment compensation.

In their revision application, Zee has sought to show a history of poor work ethic on the part of the journalist as reason for firing her.

One of Zee’s major bones of contention, according to its revision application, is not whether the journalist was fired with immediate effect, but that she was terminated on 20 August, 2012, rather than 19 August, 2012, as the complainant contends. If Zee’s argument is accepted by the courts then it would mean that the journalist’s original complaint was filed on invalid grounds and thus cannot stand in court.

The complainant recognises the 19^th, the date she received the email terminating her employment with immediate effect, as the date of termination, while Zee produced a letter dated 20 August, 2012 that they claim is the official termination letter. Both the Labour as well as the Industrial court have so far upheld the date of 19 August, 2012 as the date of termination, in line with the complainant’s contention.

The other argument put forth by Zee, as evidenced by court orders, is that a reporters job is “supervisory in nature”, thus meaning that she is not an “employee” as defined under Section 3(5) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices, 1971.

Newslaundry’s attempts to engage with Zee News’ to hear their side of the argument was stonewalled, with communication enquiring about Zee’s maternity policy as well as their termination policy and stance on this particular case going unanswered. The story will be updated as, if and when Zee chooses to respond.