Isabella Mariam

The Karnataka High Court Single Bench of Justice Jyoti M on Wednesday (December 10) said it will hear in January 2026 a batch of petitions challenging the State government’s order mandating paid menstrual leave in all registered industrial establishments, observing that the matter is of “public importance”. The petitions will now be taken up on January 20, 2026.

On Tuesday, Justice Jyoti M had, by an interim order, stayed the government notification mandating menstrual leave. However, the order was recalled just hours later after Advocate General (AG) Shashi Kiran Shetty mentioned the matter before the court.

Also Read: UPSC Must Treat Teachers Gaining 10 Years’ Experience Between Original And Revised Deadlines As Eligible : Supreme Court Allows Appeals In 2021 Delhi Principal Recruitment Challenge

The AG submitted that the interim order was in contravention of a Supreme Court judgment. He also stated that he would personally appear in the matter on Wednesday and make submissions on the prayer for interim relief.

The court is hearing a petition filed by the Bangalore Hotels Association and the Management of Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems Limited, challenging the State government’s November 20 notification.

Under this notification, industrial establishments registered under various laws are required to provide one day of paid menstrual leave per month to all permanent, contract and outsourced women employees.

During Wednesday’s hearing, the court was informed that the State government has filed its objections to the petition. The court then asked whether the notification applies to all sectors. AG Shetty responded that it does, while the petitioners’ counsel submitted that the notification pertains specifically to five types of establishments.

Referring to the constitutional framework, the AG cited Article 42, which deals with provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief, and Article 15(3), which allows special provisions for women. He also referred to a Supreme Court order directing states to provide such relief.

He added: "Ours is a progressive legislature. Throughout the world such leave is available. Law commission has gone into it. Every stake holder has been heard before issuing notification," Shetty said.

At this stage, the court orally observed: "You have filed detailed objection. We will do one thing. Advocate Prashanth (for petitioner) you go through it and file rejoinder if any. We have to hear arguments in favour and against".

The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the matter could be argued in the meantime and that the government should not precipitate the issue.

The AG, however, stated: "We will implement in full". The court then remarked: "This is a matter of public importance. We will hear after winter vacation".

Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Prashanth B K clarified that they were not objecting to the State government’s power per se, but to the method adopted. He argued that the State was implementing menstrual leave by an “executive order” when there is “no provision in statutes” authorising such a measure. He requested that a date be fixed, stating that the petitioners were ready to argue the matter on merits.

Dictating its order, the court recorded: "AG appears and submits that objections are filed in Bangalore Hotels Association and same may be excepted for other cases also. Rejoinder if any to be filed by the petitioners. Counsel for petitioner has filed memo that certain questions of law have been raised and submission is noted and memo is placed on record".

The court also noted that an application had been filed by the All India Central Council of Trade Unions (AICCTU) and other parties seeking impleadment in the matter. Time has been granted to the petitioners to file their objections to this application.

The matter has now been listed for further hearing on January 20, 2026.

The plea filed by the Bangalore Hotels Association states that:

• The association currently has around 1,540 establishments/owners as active members.

• It has been formed to promote and protect the interests of its members through representation, consultation, advocacy and education, and to foster harmonious relations between its members.

The petition notes that the statutes under which these establishments are registered primarily regulate the health, welfare and overall working conditions of employees, including hours of work, weekly holidays, and leave with wages.

It specifically refers to:

• Clause 9 of the Model Standing Orders appended to the Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, which mandates employers to provide leave with pay as provided under the Factories Act, 1948, and other holidays in accordance with law, contract, custom and usage.

• Clause 10 of the Model Standing Orders, which provides for casual leave and permits grant of casual leave of absence with or without pay not exceeding 10 days in a calendar year.

The plea states that the establishments concerned are registered under various laws, including:

• The Factories Act

• The Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act

• The Plantations Labour Act

• The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act

• The Motor Transport Workers Act

Under these, it is argued, leaves are restricted to 12 days per annum.

The petitioners contend there is already a comprehensive statutory framework mandating employers to provide sufficient leave to employees, and that the impugned notification is not supported by any legislative enactment.

Also Read: Factually Correct Joint Parental Declarations With Divorce/Custody Decrees Required For Minor’s Passport Applications; Karnataka High Court

In other words, the plea states, there is no specific provision in the above statutes mandating employers to provide menstrual leave to female employees, and therefore the State government is not empowered to direct industrial establishments to provide such leave merely by way of an executive order.

The plea further argues that the respondent (State) has, instead of leaving it to employers to decide appropriately on menstrual leave as part of their HR policies, unnecessarily interfered with the affairs of employers.

On this basis, the petition seeks quashing of the notification as being unconstitutional and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For Petitioners: Advocate Prashanth B K

For Respondents: Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty along with Additional Advocate General Prathima Honnapura

Case Title: BANGALORE HOTELS ASSOCIATION (R) v. Government of Karnataka

Case No.: WP 36659/2025 c/w WP 37122/2025

Bench: Justice Jyoti M