I. Introduction

The relationship between maternity protection and women’s employment is important because the employment consequences of childbirth can extend beyond the period of leave itself. A woman who leaves work temporarily may experience a break in income, reduced continuity of experience or difficulty returning to the same position. A legal maternity entitlement attempts to reduce these risks by recognising that pregnancy and childbirth are circumstances requiring protection rather than reasons for exclusion from employment. In this sense, maternity law is connected with equality, dignity, social security and the continuity of economic participation. The 2017 extension from 12 weeks to 26 weeks changed the practical scale of the entitlement.

A longer period can allow greater recovery and early childcare support and can provide an employee with more security during a significant stage of family life. Yet a longer absence also requires an organisation to plan for work that must continue while the employee is away. The effect is likely to be different across workplaces. A large employer may be able to reallocate duties across several employees, whereas a small firm may depend heavily on a few individuals. A specialised SME may also find temporary replacement difficult when the work requires firm-specific knowledge. These differences make the SME setting especially relevant.

The question is not whether maternity protection is legitimate; the statutory framework establishes that protection. The research question is instead whether the design and distribution of the associated costs can influence employer behaviour. If an employer expects that a particular employee may require a lengthy absence, the employer may consider continuity, replacement and training while making recruitment decisions. Such calculations can be explicit or implicit and do not necessarily amount to an intention to discriminate. Nevertheless, if they systematically reduce women’s access to regular employment, the practical effect can be important. The issue also has a human-resource dimension. Recruitment is only one part of workforce management.

Retention, employee engagement, organisational knowledge and return-to-work arrangements can change the overall cost-benefit calculation. An employer that retains a trained worker during maternity leave may avoid the expense of permanently replacing that worker. The same organisation may also benefit from a workplace culture in which employees perceive family-related leave as a normal statutory entitlement rather than a career penalty. Therefore, the analysis should consider both the short-term management of absence and the longer-term value of retaining skilled employees. The phrase “26-week paradox” is used in this article as an analytical description of this possible tension. It does not suggest that maternity rights are inherently harmful or that employers inevitably respond negatively.

Instead, it identifies a policy question: how can a stronger legal entitlement be implemented so that its protective benefits are realised without creating avoidable incentives that shift women away from regular employment? This framing permits labour-law and HR perspectives to be considered together.

Sources cited: [1] Maternity Benefit Act, 1961; [2] Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017; [3] Bose & Chatterjee (2024).

II. Objectives And Research Questions

The objectives are designed to connect the legal entitlement with its possible employment consequences. The first objective is descriptive: to understand the statutory change and the categories of workers and situations addressed by the maternity framework. The second objective is analytical: to consider why the duration of leave may matter to employers in establishments where replacement capacity is limited. The third objective is employment-focused: to examine whether the nature of employment offered to women may change when employers face a higher expected cost of absence. The research questions also require attention to the distinction between entitlement and outcome. A statutory rule can establish a right, but the real-world effect depends on awareness, enforcement, organisational capacity and labour-market conditions.

Accordingly, evidence that employment patterns changed after a legal amendment cannot automatically be treated as evidence that the amendment alone produced the change. Other variables, including industry conditions, wages, firm size, job requirements and social norms, can influence hiring and contract decisions. A further objective is to identify practical responses. The study therefore asks not only whether a tension exists, but also how organisations and institutions can reduce avoidable disruption. Workforce planning, cross-training, temporary staffing, return-to-work communication and flexible arrangements can potentially reduce the operational impact of absence. Public mechanisms may also be considered where a particular category of employer experiences a disproportionate burden.

These measures should be evaluated without weakening the statutory entitlement itself. Finally, the article aims to identify areas for future research. A focused study of SMEs could compare firms by size, sector and employment structure and examine whether the relationship between maternity benefits and hiring is stronger in particular circumstances. Interviews with employers and women employees could also reveal mechanisms that cannot be identified from aggregate employment data alone. In this way, the research questions support a more precise understanding of the paradox rather than a generalised conclusion about all employers or all women workers.

III. Research Methodology

The doctrinal component of the study examines the statutory framework governing maternity benefits. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 provide the legal foundation for the discussion. The article considers the duration of maternity leave, related categories of protection and provisions relevant to employment arrangements. The purpose of this part of the methodology is to establish what the law provides before considering possible organisational effects. The analytical component then connects the statutory rule with questions of human resource management and employment contracts. The analysis asks how a longer period of protected absence may affect workforce planning, replacement arrangements and the perceived cost of recruitment.

This is an analytical exercise rather than an assertion that such effects necessarily occur. The distinction is important because an employer’s operational difficulty does not by itself establish unlawful discrimination, just as a change in employment patterns does not by itself establish the precise reason for that change. The study relies on secondary evidence, including the academic research identified in the supplied article and institutional and statutory materials. It does not collect new survey responses from SMEs, conduct interviews or estimate a new statistical model. Therefore, the study cannot provide a firm causal estimate of the effect of the 26-week provision on SME hiring.

The evidence is instead used to identify plausible mechanisms and to examine how existing findings relate to the specific SME context. The methodological limitation is particularly important when interpreting the reported employment-contract findings. An observed association between maternity mandates and employment outcomes may reflect several channels at once. Employer expectations, changes in job structures, labour-market adjustment, sectoral conditions and household decisions can interact. A careful analysis must therefore avoid reducing a complex employment outcome to a single legal rule. Future empirical research could strengthen this methodology by combining administrative employment data with firm-level information. A difference-in-differences design, for example, could compare affected and less-affected establishments across time, subject to appropriate identification assumptions.

Qualitative interviews could then explore how managers understand maternity obligations and how women experience recruitment and return to work. Such mixed-method research would complement the doctrinal and analytical approach used here.

Sources cited: [3] Bose & Chatterjee (2024); [5] Ministry of Labour & Employment; [6] India Code.

IV. Statutory Framework Of Maternity Benefits

The statutory framework should be understood as part of a broader protective approach to labour law. Maternity benefits recognise that pregnancy and childbirth involve health, income and employment concerns that cannot be addressed adequately through ordinary leave arrangements alone. The law therefore creates specific rights and corresponding obligations for covered establishments. The 2017 amendment is significant because it increased the available period for eligible women with fewer than two surviving children from 12 weeks to 26 weeks. The change in duration has practical implications. A longer period gives greater scope for recovery and early childcare, but it also means that workforce planning must account for a longer period in which the employee may not perform ordinary duties.

The statutory framework also includes provisions dealing with women with two or more surviving children, adoption and commissioning mothers. In addition, the law provides for work-from-home arrangements where the nature of work permits and the employer and woman mutually agree to the conditions. These provisions demonstrate that maternity protection is not simply a single numerical entitlement; it is a collection of rules responding to different employment situations. From a labour-law perspective, the entitlement also reflects a protective principle: the worker should not have to choose between health and family responsibilities on one side and employment security on the other. A statutory right is intended to create a baseline that does not depend entirely on the bargaining power of an individual employee.

This is particularly relevant where an employee may have limited capacity to negotiate during pregnancy or after childbirth. At the same time, legal coverage and practical implementation should be distinguished. An employer may know that a benefit exists but still lack systems for recording leave, redistributing work or arranging temporary support. Smaller establishments may not have a dedicated HR department, making compliance dependent on the owner or a general administrative function. Clear documentation and communication can therefore be as important to implementation as the statutory text itself. The framework also raises an institutional design question. When a social protection obligation is concentrated on a particular employer, the employer may experience a stronger financial or operational incentive to consider that obligation during recruitment.

This does not imply that the entitlement should be reduced. It suggests that the distribution of costs deserves attention so that the protective objective is not undermined by unintended labour-market responses.

V. The 26-Week Paradox

The central paradox can be expressed through two legitimate objectives. The first is protection: a woman should have adequate time and income-related security around childbirth and should not lose employment simply because she becomes a mother. The second is organisational continuity: an employer must continue providing goods or services while a worker is absent. The policy challenge arises when the cost of achieving the first objective is perceived by an employer as a significant burden associated with hiring or retaining women. For an SME, the perception of burden can be shaped by the structure of the workplace. If a firm employs only a small number of people, one prolonged absence may affect scheduling, customer service or production more visibly than it would in a large enterprise.

If the employee occupies a specialised role, the replacement problem may be even more difficult. Training a temporary worker can also require time from existing employees. These factors can create a perceived risk even before a particular employee takes leave. The important word is “perceived.” Employer expectations can influence behaviour even when the actual cost is uncertain. A manager who anticipates difficulty may prefer an employment arrangement that appears easier to adjust. This could potentially affect the type of contract offered, the willingness to hire for certain roles, or the emphasis placed on continuity during recruitment. Such mechanisms require empirical testing and should not be presented as universal behaviour.

The paradox also has a temporal dimension. A short-term calculation can focus on the period of absence, while a longer-term calculation can focus on retention. A trained employee who returns after maternity leave may bring back organisational knowledge and require less recruitment and training expenditure than a permanent replacement. Thus, the same maternity entitlement can appear as a short-term operational cost and a potential long-term retention benefit. Another important dimension is fairness in recruitment. Recruitment decisions are expected to relate to the requirements of the job. If assumptions about possible future maternity become a decisive factor, the protective purpose of the law can be weakened indirectly even if the employer does not openly state a discriminatory motive.

The policy question is therefore how to manage legitimate operational needs without converting family-related assumptions into barriers to employment. The paradox should consequently be studied at the level of incentives, institutions and outcomes. Legal rights establish the standard. HR practices determine how absence is managed. Labour-market conditions influence how employers and workers respond. The interaction among these factors is more informative than attributing an employment outcome to the leave duration alone.

VI. Maternity Benefits And Female Hiring In SMEs

The SME context deserves separate consideration because organisational scale can change the practical consequences of employee absence. A small firm may have a relatively flat structure and depend on each employee performing a broad range of tasks. When one person takes extended leave, duties may need to be redistributed among a limited number of colleagues. This can create workload pressure, particularly where the firm operates with narrow staffing margins. Replacement is another issue. Temporary recruitment may involve advertising, selection, onboarding and training. If the position requires technical knowledge or familiarity with clients, the temporary worker may not immediately reach the productivity level of the employee on leave.

In some sectors, the employer may therefore face a choice between absorbing additional workload and incurring replacement costs. These operational concerns can enter HR planning even where the employer fully accepts the legal entitlement. However, the cost perspective should be balanced against the cost of employee turnover. When an experienced employee leaves permanently because the workplace cannot accommodate maternity, the organisation may lose accumulated knowledge and incur repeated recruitment and training costs. A worker who returns after maternity leave may require less adjustment than a new recruit. Continuity can therefore produce a benefit that is not visible in a narrow calculation of leave-related expenditure.

Hiring patterns can also change through contract structure. If employers seek flexibility, they may rely more heavily on temporary or non-regular arrangements. The supplied evidence concerning changes in the nature of women’s employment makes this possibility relevant. Yet non-regular employment has multiple causes. Seasonal work, demand fluctuations, business uncertainty and the nature of particular occupations can all influence contract form. A credible analysis must therefore distinguish maternity-related mechanisms from general labour-market factors. Another issue is the composition of the female workforce. Women of different ages, family circumstances and occupational categories may experience different employment outcomes. The existing research cited in the article reports stronger observed effects among married and younger women.

This suggests that future research should examine whether employer expectations, household decisions or job characteristics differ across groups. It would be inappropriate, however, to assume that every observed difference is produced by employer discrimination. SME policy should therefore focus on capacity rather than on reducing the substantive right. Simple HR systems can make a meaningful difference: advance workforce planning, documented leave procedures, cross-training and clear return-to-work communication can reduce uncertainty. Where feasible, flexible work can also help after leave, subject to the statutory framework and the nature of the job. The broader point is that maternity protection and SME competitiveness need not be treated as mutually exclusive.

Better organisational planning can reduce the disruption associated with absence while preserving the employee’s right. The remaining policy question is whether public or institutional mechanisms are needed to address burdens that individual small employers may find difficult to absorb.

VII. Empirical Evidence From Existing Research

The existing research cited in the article provides an important empirical basis for examining the paradox. Bose and Chatterjee’s 2024 study, “Motherhood penalty revisited: Impacts of maternity leave mandates on nature of employment contracts,” examines the Indian extension of paid maternity leave from 12 to 26 weeks. According to the supplied article, the study reports that women were 4.3 percentage points less likely to be regular salaried workers in establishments covered by the mandate, accompanied by an increase in the likelihood of being unpaid or wage labourers. It reports no corresponding change in entrepreneurship and identifies stronger effects among married and younger women.

These findings are relevant because they move the discussion beyond the simple question of whether women are employed. Employment quality and contract type can also be affected. If a worker remains economically active but moves from a regular salaried position into a less secure arrangement, the formal employment outcome may conceal a change in employment stability and access to protections. The findings should nevertheless be interpreted within the limits described in the supplied article. The study does not establish that maternity benefits alone cause every observed change. Employment contracts are determined by multiple factors, and the exact mechanism may involve employer costs, worker choices, labour-market adjustment or combinations of these factors.

The evidence is therefore best understood as an indication that the policy deserves further investigation rather than as a universal conclusion about employer behaviour. The SME question remains particularly open. An aggregate or broader sample may include organisations with substantially different capacity to manage absence. Large employers may have internal mobility, established HR functions and replacement pools that are not available to smaller firms. Conversely, some SMEs may have close employee relationships and flexible work practices that make adjustment easier. The effect cannot therefore be inferred simply from firm size without examining the actual organisational setting. A strong empirical research agenda would compare employment outcomes across firm sizes and sectors and observe both recruitment and retention.

It would also be useful to examine vacancies, starting contracts, promotion rates, wage outcomes and return-to-work patterns rather than focusing only on whether a woman is employed. Employer interviews could identify whether maternity-related expectations are actually considered during recruitment, while employee interviews could identify whether women perceive barriers or changes in contract offers. The evidence also highlights the importance of causal interpretation. A before-and-after comparison may capture broader changes occurring at the same time as the legal amendment. A stronger design would attempt to isolate the policy effect through appropriate comparison groups and controls. The article’s doctrinal and analytical approach cannot perform that statistical task, but it can identify the mechanisms that future empirical research should test.

VIII. Possible Effects On Employment Contracts

Employment contracts are an important part of the paradox because the effect of a maternity policy may appear not as an outright refusal to employ women but as a change in the form of employment. A regular salaried position generally reflects a more continuous employment relationship, whereas temporary or other non-regular arrangements may provide different levels of stability and progression. If maternity-related expectations influence the initial contract offered to women, the protective purpose of maternity law may be weakened indirectly. There are several possible mechanisms. An employer may seek flexibility because the timing and duration of employee absence are difficult to integrate into a small workforce.

A temporary contract may appear to reduce the perceived risk of having to reorganise work for a long period. Alternatively, an employer may avoid positions where continuous physical presence is considered essential. These are analytical possibilities, not claims that every SME follows such practices. Contract form is also affected by legitimate business considerations. SMEs may use fixed-term workers because demand is seasonal, projects are temporary or the business is uncertain. Some occupations naturally involve short assignments. Therefore, a change in the prevalence of non-regular employment cannot be attributed to maternity law without examining the context. From the employee’s perspective, contract structure can affect income security, career development and access to workplace benefits.

A woman who receives only non-regular opportunities may remain economically active but face a different employment trajectory. This is why research into maternity protection should consider the quality and stability of employment, not simply labour-force participation. The labour-law perspective also requires a distinction between legal compliance and substantive outcomes. An employer may comply with the formal maternity entitlement while recruitment patterns change in ways that are difficult to observe through compliance records. This creates a research challenge: formal legal rules and actual employment outcomes need to be examined together. For future studies, contract type should be treated as an outcome variable alongside hiring rates, wages, hours, promotions and retention.

Comparisons should control for sector, firm size, job requirements and local labour-market conditions. Qualitative evidence can then help explain why employers select particular contracts. Such an approach would provide a more reliable assessment of whether the 26-week mandate changes employment structures and through which mechanisms.

IX. Impact On SMEs: HR And Management Perspective

From an HR perspective, maternity leave is fundamentally a workforce-planning issue as well as a legal entitlement. An SME can prepare for absence by identifying critical tasks, documenting work processes and ensuring that more than one employee understands essential functions. Cross-training can reduce dependence on a single worker and make temporary redistribution of duties more manageable. These practices can benefit the organisation even outside maternity situations because they increase operational resilience. Communication is another important factor. If employees and managers understand leave procedures, expected timelines and return-to-work arrangements, uncertainty can be reduced. Clear communication should not become a mechanism for pressuring an employee to shorten statutory leave.

Instead, it should help the organisation plan while respecting the employee’s rights. Temporary replacement can be considered where appropriate. The decision will depend on the size of the business, the nature of the role and the expected workload. In some cases, redistribution may be sufficient; in others, a temporary worker may be necessary. Training requirements should be considered in advance rather than only after the employee begins leave. Return-to-work management is equally important. An employee returning after an extended absence may need an opportunity to re-familiarise herself with procedures, systems or changes that occurred during leave. Where the nature of work permits, flexible or work-from-home arrangements may support the transition, subject to the applicable statutory framework and mutual agreement.

Such arrangements should be job-related and should not create a separate disadvantage for returning mothers. Retention is the broader strategic consideration. Recruitment and onboarding involve time and expenditure, while experienced workers possess organisational knowledge that may not be easily replaced. If maternity protection supports retention, some of the apparent short-term cost may be offset by lower turnover. This does not mean that maternity leave should be justified only through productivity. The employee’s statutory right exists independently. Rather, the retention perspective demonstrates that organisational and social objectives can overlap. SMEs may also benefit from standardised HR templates, awareness programmes and external advisory support.

Small businesses often do not have specialised labour-law teams. Simple compliance tools can reduce uncertainty and administrative mistakes. At the institutional level, mechanisms that distribute disproportionate maternity-related costs may also be considered, provided they preserve the substantive entitlement of women workers. The management lesson is therefore not that employers should avoid women of childbearing age. Such an approach would replace a workforce-planning challenge with a recruitment barrier. The more constructive HR approach is to design systems that make employee absence manageable for all legitimate reasons while keeping selection decisions tied to job requirements.

X. Legal And Social Significance

The significance of maternity protection extends beyond the immediate employment relationship. Pregnancy and early childcare can affect household income, career continuity and women’s long-term participation in paid work. If employment is lost or becomes insecure around childbirth, the effect may continue after the period of leave. Statutory maternity benefits therefore operate as a form of labour-market protection that can reduce the employment consequences of a predictable life event. The legal significance is also connected with the relationship between individual rights and employer obligations. Labour law frequently requires employers to bear certain responsibilities because the employment relationship is not entirely a private contract between equal parties.

Maternity protection reflects a policy decision that health and family-related needs require a minimum level of statutory protection. The existence of an obligation does not depend on whether an individual employer considers the benefit commercially convenient. At the same time, implementation can produce economic responses. When compliance costs are concentrated on particular firms, those firms may adjust their practices. This is a general policy issue: a rule can have a socially protective objective while creating incentives that were not the main purpose of the rule. The appropriate response is to examine those incentives and, where necessary, improve implementation rather than to assume that the underlying right is undesirable.

The social significance is particularly visible when employment opportunities are scarce. In a competitive labour market, a worker may have limited ability to negotiate for family-related protections. Strong statutory standards can therefore provide security that individual bargaining may not deliver. But if women are indirectly moved into less secure work because employers anticipate maternity-related obligations, the formal right and the practical employment opportunity can diverge. The 26-week paradox is therefore a question of policy design and implementation. The two objectives—protecting women and supporting viable employment—should not automatically be framed as opposing interests. A more useful approach asks which administrative, financial and organisational arrangements can allow employers to comply without creating unnecessary recruitment disincentives.

For labour-law scholarship, this also illustrates why statutory analysis should be connected with empirical evidence. The text of the law explains the entitlement, but only workplace and labour-market research can show how employers and workers respond. For HRM scholarship, the issue demonstrates that legal compliance is part of workforce strategy rather than a separate administrative activity.

XI. Challenges In Implementation

Implementation challenges can arise at several levels. The first is legal awareness. An SME owner or manager without a dedicated HR function may not be familiar with every relevant requirement. Incomplete knowledge can create uncertainty about eligibility, documentation, leave administration and return-to-work arrangements. Clear information and accessible guidance can reduce this problem. The second challenge is operational capacity. A small firm may not have spare employees who can immediately absorb a colleague’s responsibilities. The difficulty can be greater where tasks require specialised knowledge or where customer relationships depend on a particular employee. This is why workforce planning and cross-training are important even when there is no immediate maternity leave.

The third challenge concerns employee confidence. A legal right may not be fully effective if workers fear that using it will harm their future employment prospects. This creates a distinction between formal protection and practical accessibility. Employees need understandable information about their entitlements and appropriate avenues for raising concerns. Employers also need clear internal processes so that leave is treated as a normal statutory matter rather than an exceptional favour. A fourth challenge is diversity among SMEs. Firm size alone does not determine the effect of maternity leave. Two businesses with similar employee numbers may have very different revenue models, job structures and replacement options.

A specialised consultancy, a manufacturing unit and a retail establishment may face different forms of absence management. Research should therefore avoid treating the SME category as homogeneous. A fifth challenge is the measurement of unintended effects. If women are less likely to receive regular employment after a policy change, researchers must determine whether the change is connected with maternity obligations or with other economic developments. This requires careful data and appropriate comparison groups. Finally, implementation involves balancing statutory rights with practical flexibility. Flexible work, remote work and phased arrangements can be useful where appropriate, but they should not replace the core statutory entitlement or become compulsory substitutes.

The goal is to create additional management options rather than reduce protection. These challenges suggest that the success of maternity policy depends partly on institutional support. Employers need usable information and planning tools; employees need awareness and accessible remedies; researchers need better data; and policymakers need evidence about where burdens are concentrated. Together, these elements can reduce the gap between the formal law and workplace experience.

XII. Recommendations

Recommendations For SMEs

1. The first recommendation is to strengthen simple, written maternity and return-to-work procedures in SMEs. A short policy can identify the responsible person, documentation requirements, communication channels and general planning steps. This can reduce uncertainty for both the employee and the employer.

2. Second, SMEs can build basic workforce resilience. Cross-training, task documentation and identification of temporary replacements can reduce the disruption created by any extended absence. These practices should be applied as general workforce-management tools rather than targeted only at women, thereby avoiding a perception that maternity is an exceptional organisational problem.

3. Third, employers should consider flexible work where it is compatible with the job and agreed within the statutory framework. The objective is to support return to work without compromising the employee’s statutory rights. Flexibility can be particularly useful for tasks that can be performed remotely or through adjusted schedules, while roles requiring physical presence may need different arrangements.

4. Fourth, policymakers and relevant institutions can examine whether smaller establishments face disproportionate maternity-related costs. If evidence demonstrates such a burden, mechanisms that spread or reduce costs could be evaluated. Any such mechanism should preserve the employee’s substantive entitlement and should be designed transparently.

5. Fifth, recruitment decisions should remain connected to job-related requirements. Assumptions about a candidate’s future family plans should not become a substitute for assessing qualifications, skills, availability for the actual job and other legitimate criteria.

6. Sixth, HR records should distinguish ordinary workforce planning from potentially discriminatory decision-making. Recording staffing needs, replacement arrangements and operational requirements can help an organisation demonstrate that its decisions are based on genuine job considerations rather than stereotypes.

7. Seventh, further research should examine the issue at a more detailed level. Studies should compare firms by size, sector, location and workforce composition. They should measure not only hiring but also contract type, wages, promotion, retention and return-to-work outcomes. Employer surveys can measure perceived costs, while worker surveys can measure perceived barriers.

8. Eighth, women workers should receive clear information about their statutory rights and available complaint or grievance mechanisms. Awareness is essential because a right that is unknown or difficult to claim cannot provide its full protective value.

9. Finally, policy evaluation should use a balanced framework. Success should not be measured only by leave uptake, nor only by employer cost. Relevant indicators include women’s continued access to regular employment, return-to-work rates, retention, employer compliance and the ability of SMEs to maintain operations. A multidimensional approach is more consistent with the dual legal and HR dimensions of the issue.

XIII. Limitations Of The Study

The most important limitation is the absence of primary data. The study does not survey SME employers or interview women employees. It therefore cannot directly measure the perceptions, decisions or experiences of the individuals involved in recruitment. The article’s conclusions are consequently analytical and should not be treated as a statistical estimate of the effect of the 26-week entitlement. A second limitation concerns the scope of existing evidence. The research discussed in the article may cover establishments and populations broader than SMEs. Applying those findings to small and medium-sized enterprises requires caution because the organisational capacity of SMEs can differ substantially from that of larger establishments.

A third limitation is the difficulty of establishing causality. Employment outcomes can change for many reasons, including economic conditions, industry demand, wages, technology, social norms and changes in other labour policies. A before-and-after association does not automatically establish that the maternity amendment produced the observed outcome. A fourth limitation is measurement of informal decision-making. Employers may not explicitly state that maternity costs influenced a recruitment decision. If expectations operate implicitly, administrative employment records may not reveal the mechanism. Qualitative interviews and carefully designed employer surveys would therefore be useful. Future research can address these limitations through mixed methods. Administrative or survey data can be used to compare employment outcomes across time and firm categories, while interviews can explain the decision-making process behind those outcomes.

Research can also compare industries with different replacement requirements. Such evidence would help determine whether the paradox is concentrated in particular organisational environments rather than being a general feature of all SMEs.

XIV. Conclusion

The 26-week maternity benefit represents a significant strengthening of statutory maternity protection in India. It recognises that pregnancy, childbirth and early childcare can create employment and income risks and provides eligible women with a longer period of protected maternity benefit. From a labour-law perspective, the entitlement serves an important protective purpose and should be understood as part of the broader effort to support women’s continued participation in employment. At the same time, the extension raises a legitimate research question about employer incentives. A longer period of absence can create planning and replacement challenges, particularly in smaller establishments with limited staffing capacity.

If those challenges are perceived as recruitment risks, they may influence the type of employment offered to women. Existing research cited in this article, including the 2024 study by Bose and Chatterjee, reports changes in the nature of women’s employment following the maternity leave mandate. The finding is important because it suggests that policy effects may appear through contract structure rather than simply through employment or non-employment. The evidence should nevertheless be interpreted carefully. The article does not establish that maternity benefits alone cause discriminatory hiring or that every SME responds in the same manner. Contract type and hiring outcomes are influenced by many factors.

The specific SME mechanism requires further empirical study. The central policy lesson is therefore one of implementation rather than reduction of rights. Maternity protection and women’s access to regular employment can be pursued together when organisations have effective workforce-planning systems and when broader institutional arrangements address disproportionate burdens. Cross-training, temporary replacement planning, clear leave procedures, return-to-work communication and appropriate flexible arrangements can help SMEs manage absence. Public and institutional support can also be examined where evidence shows that particular employers face concentrated costs. The paradox ultimately illustrates the importance of examining both sides of labour regulation: the right created by the law and the incentives created by its implementation.

A protective law is most effective when women can use the entitlement without sacrificing access to stable employment and when employers have realistic means to manage the resulting operational responsibilities. Continued research, especially research focused specifically on SMEs, is necessary to determine where unintended effects arise, how strong they are and which interventions can address them. The long-term objective should remain a labour market in which motherhood does not become a reason for exclusion from decent and regular employment. At the same time, policy and HR practice should recognise the real organisational task of maintaining continuity during extended leave. Treating these objectives as compatible, and studying the mechanisms that can make them compatible, provides a more balanced framework for evaluating the 26-week maternity benefit.

References

1. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, Government of India / India
2. The Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, Government of India / India
3. Bose, Saheli & Chatterjee, Somdeep (2024). “Motherhood penalty revisited: Impacts of maternity leave mandates on nature of employment contracts.” The Journal of Development Studies, 60(9), 1394–1411.
4. International Labour Organization (ILO). Maternity Protection Convention, 2000 (No. 183) and related maternity protection materials.
5. Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Materials relating to maternity benefits and labour legislation.
6. India Code. Official legislative database and statutory materials relating to the Maternity Benefit Act.
7. Relevant academic literature on women’s labour-force participation, motherhood penalty, maternity leave and employment contracts.