Are Sri Lanka’s Maternity Laws Opening Doors for Working Women?

Women workers in the public and state university sector are entitled to leave for medical treatment for subfertility, which is not offered in the private sector 

• In Sri Lanka, maternity laws recognise the reproductive role of women and provide for paid, compulsory leave for women workers
• The Establishment Code and circulars from the UGC extend maternity benefits to female officers in public and state universities
• The law is also narrow in that it excludes fathers from participating in the child’s early development
• The Maternity Benefits Ordinance of 1939 applies to women working in a trade, with “trade” given a broad interpretation, and the Shop and Office Employees Act of 1954, which applies to women working in shops and offices

By Shermila Antony

Although legislation providing for paid maternity leave and other in-kind benefits for women workers to help keep them in the labour force has existed for more than 80 years, Sri Lanka has one of the lowest female labour force participation rates in South Asia (29.8%, Sri Lanka Labour Force Survey 2024).  

In Sri Lanka, the maternity laws specifically recognise the reproductive role of women and provide for paid and compulsory leave for women workers, protection from discrimination during pregnancy, job security, mandatory health and safety measures to protect the mother and child and provisions for nursing intervals and crèche facilities. The Maternity Benefits Ordinance (MBO) of 1939 applies to women working in a trade, with “trade” given a broad interpretation, and the Shop and Office Employees (Regulation of Employment and Remuneration) Act of 1954, which applies to women working in shops and offices. Together, they protect women employed in the private sector across both industrial and non-industrial contexts. The Establishment Code, which governs the public administration in the country and circulars from the University Grants Commission, extend maternity benefits to all female officers in public and state universities. Despite these benefits, women’s labour force participation remains considerably low. This dilemma may be attributed to several gaps in the law. 

First, the law treats working women differently. For instance, whilst women workers in the private sector are eligible for 12 weeks or 84 days of paid and compulsory maternity leave (depending on the law applicable), women workers in the public sector are entitled to 84 days of maternity leave with full pay, 84 days of leave on half pay, and 84 days of leave on no pay for each childbirth. Moreover, women workers in the public and state university sector are entitled to leave for medical treatment for subfertility, which is not offered in the private sector. These conditions often shape choices and preferences, which are essentially gendered.  

Second, the law is too narrow when it should be inclusive. For instance, maternity laws only cover women in formal employment relationships. The MBO does not include casual workers, thereby excluding many women engaged in the agriculture, garment and construction industries, where the very nature of work is mostly casual. This situation puts women at risk of losing their jobs despite guarantees against discrimination. Also, it poses health risks due to returning to work immediately after confinement to prevent job loss. Although the Shop and Office Act does include casual workers, and women working in the public sector enjoy full protection regardless of whether their employment is permanent, temporary, casual, or trainee, these laws also essentially exclude women in the informal sector. 

The law is also narrow in that it excludes fathers from participating in the child’s early development. Paternity leave is not statutorily recognised, especially in the private sector, although some large private companies voluntarily provide limited leave for fathers. Conversely, male workers in the public sector are entitled to a nominal three paid working days of paternity leave following the birth of their spouse’s child. Three days of paid paternity leave are also granted for the adoption of a child. However, several additional conditions, such as employment status, apply in the latter case, raising questions about the law’s objective of treating biological and adopted children differently. 

Conversely, even where the law is progressive, it shifts the entire burden of maternity onto the employer, making women more expensive to hire. For instance, the law provides several protections against unfair dismissal of women workers due to maternity and against employment that is injurious to the mother’s health before and after pregnancy. The law also ensures that maternity does not adversely affect salary increments, pensions, seniority, or promotions. Additionally, the law requires special facilities, such as crèches (although this provision is yet to be fully implemented) and nursing breaks, for working mothers after their confinement. However, unlike in the public sector, the financial burden of maternity in the private sector is borne solely by the employer. The complete lack of state-sponsored schemes or other benefits for employers disincentivises employers from hiring women workers who want to be parents, thereby encouraging discriminatory practices in the workplace. Therefore, it is evident that favourable maternity laws in Sri Lanka are not opening doors for women workers or providing them with equal employment opportunities. The major shortcomings in the law may be attributed to its origins, where maternity and child welfare, as a matter of state policy, began as a public and preventive health concern linked to the welfare of the labour force, especially Indian immigrant labour on the plantations during British colonial rule. 

If Sri Lanka’s laws on maternity are to pave the way for women to enter and remain in the labour force, the laws must include women both in the formal and informal sectors and introduce extended paternity leave or parental leave, which may be taken by either parent at their discretion, to dismantle women as default primary carers and secondary workers. It is equally important to address the underlying structural, institutional, and socio-cultural factors, particularly traditional family roles, that undermine the effective implementation of legislation, preventing it from bridging gender gaps in employment.

(The writer is a lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Colombo and teaches labour law, Family law, legal history and Legal Systems in Sri Lanka)