Discriminatory rule of SBI

State Bank of India, the largest bank in India and 43rd largest bank in the world with more than 250,000 employees, has recently courted controversy following floating a rule, which is discriminatory to pregnant employees. A few days ago, the SBI introduced a provocative and discriminatory rule that a woman candidate over three months pregnant is 'temporarily unfit' for employment.

However, the rule came with a relief that such candidates could join the bank within four months after delivery. With shrewd managers sitting at the helm of the bank, decision like this is sure to come because they never care to mix their business with social justice especially to the fair sex.The bank perhaps did not want to employ women who were sure to go on maternity leave a short while after joining.

As a knee-jerk reaction, political parties and women's organisations flayed the rule and the women's organisations considered it as a kind of disability. In fact, it forced a woman to choose between having a child or working in the bank, and it surely challenged their right to both work and child-birth.

As pressure mounted on the SBI authorities from various quarters, the SBI naturally backtracked on its order. However, it did not revoke the circular but kept it in 'abeyance'. It is pertinent to note that earlier pregnant women candidates were eligible to be appointed in the bank up to six months of pregnancy, provided the candidate furnished a certificate from specialist gynaecologist that her taking up the bank's employment at that stage is in no way likely to interfere with her pregnancy or the normal development of the foetus or is not likely to cause her miscarriage or otherwise to adversely affect her health.

As a matter of fact, the SBI was trying to push an amendment it had originally introduced in 2009. But it had to withdraw this controversial order following public outcry. The Indian Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and the Code on Social Security, 2020 are sure to protect a woman's rights related to pregnancy and privacy. At this juncture, it may be recalled that some employers overtly or covertly refuse to employ pregnant women to save on maternity benefit costs. Besides, some employers have prejudices against pregnant workers and refuse to hire them as these pregnant women will have to be given maternity leave.

Interestingly, some employers too tell pregnant candidates to try their luck after having the baby. Deliberate attempt from the part of private companies to refuse to give appointment to pregnant candidates and the outright refusal by the public sector bank too must open the eyes of the government. So, laws must be rewritten to further strengthen the punitive clauses in order to stop illegal rejection of jobs to women candidates on account of their pregnancy.

T K Nandan, Kochi