案 情 简 介

Blue Sky Company alleged that during her pregnancy, Xiao Lin failed to

 strictly comply with company regulations regarding leave application 

procedures, constituting truancy; th termination of her employment contract

 was not illegal, and thus it refused to pay her compensation of 219,310.88 

yuan for the illegal terminn.

Xiao Lin argued that she had notified her direct supervisor of her leave via 

WeChat in advance and subsequently submitted the leave procedures. She 

claimed that the company was merely fabricating an ex termination, which 

was illegal and infringed upon her legitimate rights and interests as a 

woman in the "three critical periods".

法 院 审 理 

The court held that between May 6 and May 9, 2024, although Xiao Lin did 

not report to work, she had previously informed her direct supervisor of her 

illness and the need for leave. On May 8, 2024, when the company inquired 

about her attendance, splained that the reason for not applying for leave in 

a timely manner was due to her need to go to the hospital for a follow-up 

examination to determine whether leave was necessary and the duraion 

thereof. On May 9, 2024, when the company requested her to complete 

leave procedures, she initiated a leave application in the office system and 

uploaded a diagnosis tificate. On May 10, 2024, she uploaded relevant 

attachments such as medical records, and Xiao Lin has now produced the 

original certificate issued by the hospital, demonsing that her absence was 

not without cause but was indeed due to sick leave. Although Blue Sky 

Company's attendance management regulations have clear requirements 

for the leave application process, Xiao Lin fulfilledty to inform during 

communication and promptly supplemented the submission of the leave 

application and relevant materials. The company's rejection of the 

application on the grounds of "exceeding the prescribed t termination of 

the labor contract citing Xiao Lin's consecutive absence from work failed to 

fully consider her special circumstances during pregnancy and the objective 

reasons involved. The handling was improper and constitute termination of 

the labor contract; therefore, the company is ordered to pay Xiao Lin 

compensation for the illegal termination. The court ultimately rendered the 

above judgment.

Following the judgment, Blueany appealed, but the second-instance court 

upheld the original judgment. The judgment is now effective.

法 官 说 法 

The state has explicitly stipulated through legislation that female employees 

in the "three periods" (pregnancy, maternity, and lactation) el protection, 

safeguarding their right to take leave for reasons such as pregnancy, 

prenatal check-ups, and childbirth. Article 42 of the *Labor Contract Law of 

the Peopl Republic of China* stipulates that during pregnancy, maternity, 

and lactation, to protect the rights and interests of female employees, 

employers may not terminate labor contracts in accordance wit Articles 40 

and 41 of this Law. In this case, Xiao Lin was in her pregnancy period and 

indeed needed rest due to prenatal check-ups and physical discomfort. Her 

reasor leave were genuine and lawful; there were only procedural flaws 

regarding leave formalities, processes, or timing, rather than malicious 

absence or serious disciplinary violations. The company should have 

consideredircumstances during pregnancy and objective reasons to take 

reasonable measures in exercising its management authority; its direct 

exercise of the right to terminate was improper.

This serves as a reminder to all employeattach great importance to the

legitimate rights and interests of female employees in the "three periods." 

In the process of personnel management, employers must consider the 

special circumstances of these employees and correctlye protection of their 

special rights with the employer's management authority, so as to build a 

harmonious and stable labor relationship.