JUDGMENT : (MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.) The petitioner is a Self Financing College. The 3 rd respondent was an Assistant Professor in the petitioner- College for the period from 14.10.2016 to 09.05.2019 and from 04.07.2019 to 31.01.2021. After her cessation from service of the petitioner, the 3 rd respondent filed W.P.(C) No.38671 of 2022 for issuance of proper experience certificate and for maternity benefits during the period she was in the service of the petitioner. This Court, by Ext. P1 judgment, directed the petitioner to issue proper experience certificate to the 3 rd respondent and granted liberty to the 3 rd respondent to approach the petitioner with apposite application seeking maternity benefits. 2. Pursuant to Ext. P1, the 3 rd respondent was issued with Ext. P2 experience certificate wherein it is shown that the 3 rd respondent has worked with the petitioner from 14.10.2016 to 09.05.2019 and from 04.07.2019 to 31.01.2021. 3. The petitioner on 11.04.2023 paid to the 3 rd respondent Rs.45,000/- as maternity benefit calculated at the rate of her last monthly Basic Pay of Rs.15,000/- along with Rs.3,500/- being medical bonus. Being dissatisfied, the 3 rd respondent submitted Ext.P4 complaint under Section 17(1) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) before the 2 nd respondent, the Assistant Labour Officer. The 2 nd respondent passed Ext. P5 order finding that the 3 rd respondent is entitled to maternity benefit as she had 140 days of service in the 12 months period immediately preceding her date of delivery, as required by Section 5(2) of the Act and for one month’s medical leave. The petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 161585/- being the balance amount due to the 3 rd respondent. Challenging Ext.P5, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 appeal before the 1 st respondent, the Deputy Labour Commissioner and the 1 st respondent, by Ext.P7 order, confirmed Ext.P5 order. Following Exts.P5 and P7, the 2 nd respondent issued Ext.P8 show cause notice for recovery. Exts.P5, P7 and P8 are impugned in this writ petition. 4. According to the petitioner, the 3 rd respondent has not worked during the period of three calendar months immediately preceding the date from which she absented herself on account of maternity, that is, the period immediately preceding the day of her delivery. Exts.P5, P7 and P8 are impugned in this writ petition. 4. According to the petitioner, the 3 rd respondent has not worked during the period of three calendar months immediately preceding the date from which she absented herself on account of maternity, that is, the period immediately preceding the day of her delivery. It is contended that the 3 rd respondent had been absent from work since February 1, 2021, including the three months before her delivery. As a result, her average daily wages for that period were nil. Since no minimum wage was set for the post of Assistant Professor, her maternity benefit, as per Section 5(1) of the Act was calculated at Rs.10 per day for the entire 26-week period, as provided in Section 5(3) of the Act and no further amounts are payable. It is also contended that the 3 rd respondent has not produced any medical certificate in terms of Section 10 of the Act. It is further contended that the appellate authority did not apply its mind and confirmed Ext. P5 order. 5. It is to be noted that the petitioner has not disputed the entitlement of the 3 rd respondent for maternity benefit. The applicability of the Act to the petitioner institution is also not disputed. The only dispute is with regard to the period of employment of the 3 rd respondent with the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the 3 rd respondent had worked with the petitioner only for the period up to 31.01.2021 and therefore she is not entitled for maternity benefit in terms of the Section 5 of the Act read with the explanation thereto. 6. The 2 nd respondent, the Original Authority, on the basis of the documents produced has found that the 3 rd respondent had worked for three calendar months immediately preceding the date of delivery. Exts.R3(e) is the E-mail message sent by the petitioner to the 3 rd respondent requesting for approval of leave. Ext.R3(f) shows that the leave sought for by the 3 rd respondent in Ext.R3(e) has been sanctioned. On going through Exts. R3(e) and R3(f), I find that the 2 nd respondent has rightly held that the 3 rd respondent was in the service of the petitioner three months preceding the date of her delivery. Ext.R3(f) shows that the leave sought for by the 3 rd respondent in Ext.R3(e) has been sanctioned. On going through Exts. R3(e) and R3(f), I find that the 2 nd respondent has rightly held that the 3 rd respondent was in the service of the petitioner three months preceding the date of her delivery. I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of facts entered by the original authority in Ext.P5 and confirmed in Ext.P7. When the provisions of the Act are applied on the said set of facts, the reasoning in Exts.P5 and P7 cannot be said to be perverse or wrong. The objective of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, is to safeguard the health and well-being of women workers during pregnancy and childbirth by providing paid maternity leave, medical benefits, and job security. It ensures that women can take time off for childbirth and postnatal care without financial distress. Upon analyzing Exts.P5 and P7 orders in the light of the objective of the Act, I find no reason to interfere with those orders in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.