S. Muralee Krishna, J.

1. Respondents 2 and 4 in W.P.(C)No.18148 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The 1st respondent-writ petitioner was appointed as Project Fellow I under the 2nd appellant, Sophisticated Test and Instrumentation Centre (‘STIC’ for short), Cochin University Campus, Kochi, for a period of one year as per Ext.P1 appointment order dated 04.07.2022. According to the 1st respondent, she was appointed temporarily with a monthly stipend of Rs. 22,000/-. On completion of the 1st contractual period, her tenure was extended for a further period of one year as per Ext.P2 letter of extension dated 05.07.2023, with effect from 06.07.2023. Again, the period of contract was extended for one more year with effect from 08.07.2024 as per Ext.P3 letter dated 06.07.2024 issued by the 2nd appellant herein-4th respondent. On completion of each year of appointment and extension, the 1st respondent was issued with experience certificates, which were marked as Exts.P4 and P4(a) in the writ petition.

               2.1.   The 1st respondent pleads that, on 05.03.2025, during her 8th month of pregnancy, she made a request to the 2nd appellant for the grant of statutory maternity leave as per Ext.P6 representation. Since Ext.P6 representation was not responded, the 1st respondent sent Ext.P7 email dated 03.04.2025 with her medical certificates to the 2nd appellant and availed leave from 03.04.2025 onwards. In reply to Ext.P7 email, the 1st respondent received Ext.P8 reply email sent by the 2nd appellant, rejecting her request for maternity leave, stating the reason that her appointment is merely temporary. Aggrieved by the refusal to grant maternity leave, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner submitted Ext.P9 representation, via email on 04.04.2025, to the Vice Chancellor of the University. Though she received Ext.P10 reply email dated 08.04.2025 from the Personal Secretary of the Vice Chancellor stating that the matter has been taken up and informed the concerned section for necessary action, no response was followed. Therefore, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs;

               “1. Call for the records connected with the case

               2. Issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction to quash Ext P8 communication issued by the 4th respondents as it is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the letter and spirit of the Maternity Benefits Act;

               3. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to grant the petitioner benefits under the Maternity Benefits Act 1961, including leave and all monetary benefits she would have otherwise been entitled to, till the expiry of her maternity leave in September 2025;

               4. Direct the respondents to continue deduction of PF contribution till the expiry of her maternity leave in September 2025 and grant the petitioner the total accumulated value in the PF account at the end of her tenure, along with the relevant certificate of subscription;

               5. Direct the respondents to grant the petitioner one year experience certificate for the last year of her employment from 06.07.2024;

               6. Impose cost on the respondents and initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 21 of the Maternity Benefits Act against the 4th respondent Director for denial of maternity benefits;”

3. In the writ petition, on behalf of Cochin University of Science and Technology and the Vice Chancellor of the University, a statement dated 21.05.2025 was filed, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Annexures R1(a) and R1(b) documents. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of that statement read thus;

               “3. With respect to the various averments and allegations contained in the above Writ Petition, it is submitted that a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as MoU) has been entered between the Cochin University of Science and Technology (hereinafter referred to as CUSAT) and Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment (hereinafter referred as STIC) on 07.08.2020. A true copy of the said MoU dated 07.08.2020 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(a). As per Clause No. 3 of the said MoU, it is stipulated that the parties agreed to have the pay, allowances and other expenditure on account of the staff to be borne from the resources available to STIC. Clause 4.2 of the MoU says that the land provided by the CUSAT and funds for the repair and maintenance of buildings shall be the responsibility of CUSAT. As per Clause 4.3, CUSAT shall also provide funds for meeting the electricity and water charges for running of STIC and its operations. Clause 5 specifies the operation, maintenance and management of STIC, which states that the STIC is given an autonomous status for administrative control with the Director as the Chief Executive Authority. The STIC, of which the 4th respondent is the Director, also has a Governing Council and Executive Committee comprising the officers from CUSAT, including the respondents 2 and 3 and STIC. It is also to be noted herein that STIC, being the autonomous institution functioning under the 2nd respondent, which is a subsidiary institution of the Government of Kerala, if following the Service Rules and Regulations applicable to KSCSTE with effect from 01.04.2008.

               4. It is submitted that STIC being a joint venture of the respondents 1 and 2, is a separate and independent entity having its own activities and operations, hierarchy and resources. The financial arrangement for meeting the running expenditure of STIC have to be met jointly by KSCSTE and CUSAT as per the relevant clauses contained in the MoU dated 07.08.2020, by which, CUSAT shall provide funds for electricity and water charges and also provide funds for repairing and maintenance of buildings only.

               5. It is further submitted that STIC doesn’t come under the direct administrative control of CUSAT and the center has autonomous status, having the administrative control vested with its director. The appointment of staff at STIC and their administrative matters are not dealt with by the Planning Section of the 1st respondent University.

               6. It is submitted that the petitioner in the above writ petition was appointed as Project Fellow-I on a term-based appointment for one year as per Exhibit P-1, which ended on 04.07.2023. She was subsequently offered another one- year term from 06.07.2023 to 05.07.2024, which is reflected in Exhibit P2, following a short break in service. A third term was also offered from 09.07.2024 to 08.07.2025 under the same temporary terms. Thereafter, the petitioner left the organization on 02.04.2025 due to maternity related reasons and submitted a request for maternity benefits through Exhibit P8 email dated 03.04.2025. It is given to understand by the respondents 1 and 3 that the 4th respondent, Director, STIC, replied on the same day, stating that her claim could not be accepted, as her engagement was purely temporary and not under contractual appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent Vice- Chancellor, CUSAT on 04.04.2025. The Registrar of CUSAT, through letter No.CUSAT/PL(UGC).A2/1033/2021 dated 13.05.2025, advised her to address the appeal to the Director, STIC (4th respondent herein), clarifying that the Centre is administratively autonomous. A true copy of the letter No. CUSAT/PL(UGC).A2/1033/2021 dated 13.05.2025 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(b). She has not filed any appeal to the Director, STIC, so far.”

4. On behalf of the 2nd appellant, a counter-affidavit dated 03.06.2025 was filed in the writ petition opposing the reliefs sought for. Paragraphs 5 to 12 of that counter affidavit read thus;

               “5. It is submitted that the water quality testing lab is one of the important project undertaken by the STIC, In the project persons are engaged as trainees or consultants. or research fellows. This respondent issued a notification on 16.05.2022 inviting applications from qualified persons for being engaged as project trainees for a period of one year on a monthly stipend of Rs. 22,000/-. The petitioner was one of the applicant to the post and having found eligible, she was offered the engagement as a Project Fellow on a monthly stipend of Rs. 22,000/-.

               6. It has been specifically provided that the engagement is purely on temporary adhoc basis and the work was also assigned to her. The petitioner was not paid any wages or salary by the institution, and what is paid is only a stipend in the form of a fellowship. The engagement of the petitioner is purely as a project trainee or fellow.

               7. It is submitted that since the project has not completed; and is an ongoing project, her term was extended, with usual brake on the same terms and conditions. The last extension of the training period of the petitioner was up to 08.07.2025.

               8. It is submitted that while continuing as the Project Fellow, the petitioner applied for maternity leave by application dated 05.03.2025, proposing to avail leave from the mid of April, for six months. It is submitted that the leave sought for exceeds the period of appointment. Further, since the petitioner was only paid stipend as trainee in a project, she is not entitled for maternity leave in terms of the Rules governing the service.

               9. It is submitted that the petitioner is not a permanent employee of this respondent or that of the 2nd respondent. The Leave Rules going by the Service Rules governing the KSCSTE is the Rules of the Kerala State Council for Science Technology and Environment, which enables only leave to a permanent employee and not to the project trainees or persons appointed as a fellow. The maternity leave provided in the Rules saysthat maternity leave may be granted to female employee for a period of 135 days from the date of its commencement. The `employee' means permanent employee in the service of the KSCSTE or its constituent institutions. The petitioner is not an employee of the institution. The term of engagement of the petitioner also expires by 08.07.2025.

               10. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner to grant leave up to September 2025 has no substance since even if she has not availed the leave, she will not continue beyond 08.07.2025.

               11. It is submitted that the claim is made on the strength of the Maternity Benefit Act. The Maternity Benefit Act applies to the establishments enumerated under Section 2 of the Act. Section 3(e) deals with establishments, which says e) "establishment" means- (i) a factory;

               (ii) a mine;

               (iii) a plantation;

               (iv) an establishment wherein persons are employed for the exhibition of equestria" acrobatic and other performances; (iv-a) a shop or establishment; or

               (v) an establishment to which the provisions of this Act have been declared under sub-Section (1) of Section 2 to be applicable

               12.    It is submitted that the STIC is not an establishment covered by the Maternity Benefit Act. The benefit, if at all, can be claimed only as per the service conditions governing the Rules, which is applicable only to the employees, and the employee means a permanent employee and not for Research fellows or trainees.”

5. To the statement and counter affidavit, a reply affidavit dated 24.06.2025 was filed by the 1st respondent-petitioner, producing therewith Exts.P11 and P12 documents.

6. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 13.10.2025 allowed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the appellants are now before this Court with the present writ appeal.

7. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin University of Science and Technology.

8. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellants would submit that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner is only a Project Fellow and she is not a permanent or temporary employee receiving salary. The amount paid to her is only a fellowship. The employer herein, i.e., the University, is neither a shop nor an establishment coming under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (the ‘Act’ for short), and so also the 1st respondent-writ petitioner is not an employee as defined under the said Act, entitling her to claim the benefit of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The learned Single Judge failed to consider these aspects while passing the impugned judgment.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner would submit that even an ad-hoc employee is entitled to the benefit of maternity leave as provided under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu [(2025) 8 SCC 263] and that of Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department [(2024) 1 SCC 421]. The learned counsel further relied on Ext.P11 judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 27.08.2019 in W.P.(C)No.15218 of 2018, and that of a Division Bench of this Court dated 11.02.2025 in W.A.No.2164 of 2019. By pointing out Ext.P8 reply email dated 03.04.2025 sent by the Director, STIC to the 1st respondent, the learned counsel argued that the appointment of the 1st respondent is admitted as on a temporary basis. According to the learned counsel, STIC will fall under the purview of a shop under Section 2(15) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960.

10.  The learned Standing Counsel for the University would argue that the University is not the employer but only a facilitator, and therefore, there is no liability on the University on the claim of the 1st respondent.

11.  In reply to the arguments of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants would submit that the judgments in Dr. Kavita Yadav [(2024) 1 SCC 421] relied on by the 1st respondent, as well as the judgment of K. Umadevi [(2025) 8 SCC 263] are not applicable to the facts of the instant case, since those cases are pertaining to temporary employees and whereas in the present case, the 1st respondent is only a Project Fellow receiving stipend. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that in the writ petition, there are no pleadings regarding the applicability of the Act, and such a pleading was taken only in the reply affidavit.

12.  In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the parties, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant provisions under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as well as the Act, 1960.

13.  As per Section 3 (e) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961;

               "establishment" means- (i) a factory;

               (ii)    a mine;

               (iii)    a plantation;

               (iv)   an establishment wherein persons are employed for the exhibition of equestrian, acrobatic and other performances;

               (iv-a) a shop or establishment; or

               (v)    an establishment to which the provisions of this Act have been declared under sub-Section (1) of Section 2 to be applicable.”

14. Section 3(n) of the said Act defines wages as;

               “All remuneration paid or payable in cash to a woman, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled and includes –

               (1) Such cash allowances (including dearness allowance and house rent allowance) as a woman is for the time being entitled to;

               (2) incentive bonus; and

               (3)    the money value of the concessional supply of foodgrains and other articles,

               But not include –

               (i) any bonus other than incentive bonus;

               (ii) over-time earning and any deduction or payment made on account of fines;

               (iii) any contribution paid or payable by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund or for the benefit of the woman under any law for the time being in force; and

               (iv)any gratuity payable on the termination of service.”

15.  Section 3(o) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 defines “woman” as “a woman employed, whether directly or through any agency, for wages in any establishment”.

16.  Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, reads thus;

               “Effect of laws and agreements inconsistent with this Act -

               (1)    The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service, whether made before or after the coming into force of this Act:

               Provided that where under any such award, agreement, contract of service or otherwise, a woman is entitled to benefits in respect of any matter which are more favourable to her than those to which she would be entitled under this Act, the woman shall continue to be entitled to the more favourable benefits in respect of that matter, notwithstanding that she is entitled to receive benefits in respect of other matters under this Act.

               (2)    Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to preclude a woman from entering into an agreement with her employer for granting her rights or privileges in respect of any matter, which are more favourable to her than those to which she would be entitled under this Act.”

17.  While coming to the Act, 1960, as per Section 2(4),

“commercial establishment” means       a commercial or industrial or trading or  banking or        insurance establishment, an establishment or administrative service in which the persons employed are mainly engaged in office work, hotel, restaurant, boarding or eating house, cafe or any other refreshment house, a theatre or any other place of public amusement or entertainment and includes such other establishment as the Government may, by notification in the Gazette, declare to be a commercial establishment for the purposes of this Act, but does not include a factory to which all or any of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act 63 of 1948) apply.”

18.  As per Section 2(6) of the Act;

               “Employee means a person wholly or principally employed in, and in connection with, any establishment and includes an apprentice or any class of persons as the Government may, by notification in the Gazette, declare to be an employee for the purposes of this Act.”

19.  Section 2(15) of the Act defines shop as;

               “Any premises where any trade or business is carried on or where services are rendered to customers, and includes offices, store-rooms, godowns or warehouses, whether in the same premises or otherwise, used in connection with such trade or business but does not include a commercial establishment or a shop attached to a factory where the persons employed in the shop are allowed the benefits provided for workers under the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act 63 of 1948).”

20.  We have carefully gone through the rival contentions of the parties and the materials placed on record. According to the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, she is a temporary employee under the STIC on a contractual basis, and whereas, according to the appellants, she is a Project Fellow receiving only a stipend. The judgment in Dr. Kavita Yadav [(2024) 1 SCC 421], as well as the judgment of K. Umadevi [(2025) 8 SCC 263], deals with the cases of temporary and permanent employees and not Project Fellows appointed for a specific period on a contract basis in order to complete a particular Project. While going through the definition of employee under the Act, it can be seen that the 1st respondent- writ petitioner cannot claim the status of temporary or permanent employee. Therefore, the judgments in Dr. Kavita Yadav [(2024) 1 SCC 421] and K. Umadevi [(2025) 8 SCC 263], do not apply to the facts of the present case. So also, the 1st respondent has not produced any material to come to a conclusion that the STIC will fall under the definition of a commercial establishment or a shop as defined under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. A pleading to that effect is conspicuously absent in the writ petition, though in the reply affidavit, the pleadings are incorporated. However, as noted above, there are no supporting materials to accept the said pleadings. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner will not fall under the definition of an employee, temporary or permanent, who can claim the benefit of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, to entitle her to get maternity leave, and so also the status of STIC.

21.  Having considered the pleading and materials placed on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

               In the result, this writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.18148 of 2025, and the writ petition stands dismissed.