Purchase Manager alleges denial of 26-week maternity pay, workplace exclusion, career losses; Labour Court records repeated absence of CEO, lists case for Nov 7
KD NEWS SERVICE
LEH-LADAKH, Nov 5: The much-publicised progressive and humanitarian credentials of Sonam Wangchuk-founded Himalayan Institute of Alternative Ladakh (HIAL) have come under serious scrutiny following allegations that the institution denied a woman employee her statutory maternity benefits, abruptly cut off her official workplace access after childbirth and withheld her experience certificate, leaving her struggling to protect both her financial security and professional future while caring for a newborn.
In a deeply troubling account of alleged workplace insensitivity, Amina Khatoon, who joined HIAL as a Purchase Manager in July 2023, has approached the Labour Court in Leh, accusing the institution of withholding her salary for the entire 26-week maternity leave period, leaving her employment status unresolved and depriving her of documents necessary to pursue alternative employment opportunities.
What makes the allegations particularly disturbing is that Khatoon claims she continued discharging her professional responsibilities throughout her pregnancy and proceeded on maternity leave only on March 9, 2024, after submitting the requisite documents relating to her pregnancy and delivery. Despite fulfilling these requirements, she alleges, HIAL withheld her maternity payment and subsequently left her without any clear communication about her return to work.
The case has now assumed considerable significance as the Court of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALC), Leh, has repeatedly issued notices to HIAL Chief Executive Officer Gitanjali Angmo and the institution’s HR representative, Dechen, seeking their appearance in the proceedings.
According to the official order dated August 28, 2026, the two respondents appeared only once, on July 13, despite being served notices for other scheduled hearings. The authority specifically recorded that Amina Khatoon had appeared before it and submitted her representations and supporting records, while the respondents failed to attend the remaining proceedings without furnishing sufficient cause.
The case, registered as Case No. 22 on June 27, 2026, has now been listed for November 7 for final orders.
A working woman allegedly abandoned after childbirth
The sequence of events narrated by Khatoon in her complaint raises serious questions about HIAL’s treatment of its women employees and its institutional responsibility towards a working mother.
In her written representation, Khatoon stated that she had been employed with HIAL since July 2023 and worked throughout her pregnancy until March 9, 2024, when she proceeded on maternity leave.
She maintained that under the applicable law and the terms of her employment contract, she was entitled to 26 weeks of maternity leave with salary for the entire period. All necessary documents concerning her pregnancy and delivery, she stated, were submitted to the institution within the prescribed timelines.
Despite this, she alleged, HIAL neither released her maternity dues nor provided a convincing explanation for withholding the payment.
Significantly, Khatoon claimed in her representation that the institution had acknowledged through email that she was on maternity leave from March 9, 2024. Yet, despite this acknowledgement, her maternity salary allegedly remained on hold without any valid justification.
The question that now demands an answer from HIAL’s management is why a woman employee who had formally proceeded on maternity leave, submitted the necessary documentation and, according to her, received acknowledgement of her leave status, was allegedly denied the financial benefits legally available to her.
Maternity benefits are not discretionary concessions granted by an employer out of goodwill. They are statutory entitlements intended to protect women from financial insecurity during pregnancy and after childbirth. An institution cannot claim progressive values while treating such protections as optional administrative arrangements.
Removed from official communication channels within a month of delivery
The allegations become even more serious when it comes to the treatment Khatoon claims to have faced immediately after becoming a mother.
According to her complaint, approximately one month after delivering her baby, HIAL CEO Gitanjali Angmo removed her from the institution’s official team WhatsApp group. Her corporate email account was also blocked around the same time.
These actions, according to Khatoon, effectively cut her off from the institution’s official communication network without any formal clarification about her employment status or the procedure for resuming work after maternity leave.
For a woman who had just delivered a child, the sudden loss of workplace communication and uncertainty over her professional future allegedly became an additional source of anxiety and distress.
Khatoon stated that while she was already dealing with the physical and emotional challenges associated with childbirth and caring for an infant, the uncertainty surrounding her job and unpaid maternity benefits caused severe mental stress and sleep deprivation.
The circumstances raise an uncomfortable question about the manner in which HIAL’s management allegedly dealt with an employee at a time when she was entitled to institutional support and statutory protection.
Rather than receiving clarity about her return to work and the payment of her maternity benefits, Khatoon claims she was left struggling to obtain even basic information about her employment.
Experience certificate allegedly withheld, EIL opportunity lost
The alleged mistreatment, according to the complaint, also extended beyond maternity benefits and workplace communication, affecting Khatoon’s future employment prospects.
She stated that after completing her maternity leave, she attempted to return to the HIAL office but was told to go back and wait for the HR department to inform her when she could rejoin.
No formal termination notice was issued to her, she alleged, nor was she given any written confirmation regarding her rejoining.
At the same time, the institution allegedly withheld her experience certificate, despite her having worked there since July 2023.
The consequences, she claimed, were substantial. Khatoon specifically mentioned losing an opportunity to work with Engineers India Limited (EIL), besides missing other employment prospects, because she could not furnish the experience certificate for her tenure at HIAL, which was mentioned in her resume.
The alleged withholding of this document raises serious concerns about the extent to which an employer can leave a former employee in professional limbo by neither formally terminating the employment relationship nor facilitating a proper exit through the issuance of relevant service documents.
For Khatoon, the issue was not simply about obtaining a piece of paper. It was about being able to move forward professionally, secure another source of income and provide financial stability for her family.
The irony is that an institution that publicly advocates alternative approaches to education and social development is now facing allegations that its own employee was denied basic professional support when she needed it most.
Repeated attempts to resolve dispute allegedly ignored
Khatoon has also detailed her attempts to resolve the matter internally before approaching the Labour Court.
According to her complaint, she continued following up with CEO Gitanjali Angmo, the HR department and HIAL founder Sonam Wangchuk for several months through emails and messages.
She maintained that despite these repeated communications, she failed to receive a clear response regarding her pending maternity salary, employment status or experience certificate.
The alleged silence from the management ultimately compelled her to seek intervention from the statutory labour authorities.
The fact that the employee claims to have approached the institution’s senior management, including its founder, but still failed to secure a satisfactory resolution raises questions about the effectiveness of HIAL’s internal grievance-redressal mechanism.
It also puts the institution’s leadership under scrutiny. When an employee raises a grievance involving statutory maternity benefits, the management cannot simply allow the matter to linger indefinitely. It has an obligation to examine the complaint, communicate its position and ensure that the employee’s lawful entitlements are addressed.
Labour authority records repeated absence of HIAL management
The proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Leh, have further intensified the controversy.
The matter was registered as Case No. 22 on June 27, 2026, under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, read with Section 45 of the Code on Wages, 2019, concerning the alleged non-payment and delayed payment of earned wages.
The proceedings are also before the competent authority under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
The August 28, 2026 order provides a detailed account of the hearings and the conduct of the parties.
According to the order, the matter was listed for June 29, July 7, July 13 and August 17, 2026, before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Leh.
The authority recorded that despite service of notices, non-applicants Gitanjali Angmo and Dechen appeared only once, on July 13, and failed to attend the other proceedings without furnishing sufficient cause.
In contrast, the authority specifically acknowledged that the applicant, Amina Khatoon, appeared before it and placed her submissions and supporting records on file.
Taking note of the respondents’ repeated absence, the authority observed that their non-appearance reflected deliberate non-compliance with statutory proceedings initiated under the prevailing labour laws.
The authority consequently issued what it described as a last and final opportunity, directing the respondents to appear through an authorised representative on September 15, 2026, at 11:30 am, and submit their written statement along with all supporting documents.
The order specifically directed respondent No. 1, Gitanjali Angmo, to attend the proceedings without fail.
It also carried a stern warning that failure to comply could result in coercive action permissible under law, with the respondents facing the consequences and costs.
Importantly, the authority stated that in the event of failure to appear, it would proceed with the maternity benefit matter under Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
However, according to the subsequent developments in the case, Angmo failed to appear on September 15 to record her statement. The matter has consequently been listed for November 7 for final orders.
The repeated absence of the institution’s senior representatives, particularly after the authority issued a specific final direction, raises serious questions about the importance HIAL’s management attaches to statutory labour proceedings.
An organisation cannot expect its employees to remain answerable to institutional rules and contractual obligations while its own management appears unwilling to provide timely answers before the competent labour authority.
While the final determination of liability rests with the authority, the recorded proceedings and the complainant’s submissions make the case deserving of serious public scrutiny.
Humanitarian image versus workplace accountability
The controversy is particularly embarrassing for HIAL because of the public image it has cultivated around progressive education, environmental sustainability, humanitarian values and alternative models of development.
Sonam Wangchuk has built considerable public recognition around his advocacy of social responsibility, educational reform, environmental protection and community welfare. HIAL, too, has projected itself as an institution committed to innovative and socially conscious approaches.
However, the allegations made by Khatoon present a starkly different picture of the institution’s alleged internal functioning.
If the allegations are established, the denial of maternity benefits, exclusion from official communication channels, uncertainty over employment and withholding of professional documents would represent a serious failure of workplace responsibility.
The issue is not whether HIAL subscribes to a particular philosophy or promotes an alternative model of education. The real test of an institution’s values lies in how it treats the people working within it, particularly those who are dependent on their employment for financial security.
Humanitarianism cannot remain confined to speeches, public campaigns, institutional publicity or social media messaging. It must be reflected in everyday conduct, including the treatment of employees, respect for labour legislation and protection of women during maternity.
A woman who works throughout her pregnancy should not have to spend months pursuing her employer for benefits protected by law. Nor should she be left uncertain about her employment status or deprived of professional documents necessary for securing another job.
The case also raises a broader concern for women employed in private institutions across Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir. Statutory maternity protections are meaningful only when employers implement them in practice and labour authorities ensure accountability whenever complaints arise.
Land and school controversies add to HIAL’s mounting difficulties
The maternity benefits dispute is unfolding at a time when HIAL is already facing other serious administrative and legal controversies.
In August 2025, the Ladakh administration cancelled the institute’s allotment of 1,076 kanals of land, citing alleged failure to execute the lease deed, non-payment of requisite licence fees and violations of stipulated land-use conditions.
The land dispute subsequently became the subject of legal proceedings, with the Ladakh administration raising serious allegations before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
More recently, on November 1, 2026, the Leh administration issued a formal notice to HIAL CEO Gitanjali Angmo, directing the institution to immediately halt classes and activities at its newly opened Desert Flower School pending the final decision in the matter before the High Court.
In the separate land-related proceedings, the administration has also levelled allegations against Sonam Wangchuk concerning illegal occupation of public land, dissemination of false and provocative propaganda and mobilisation of staff and students associated with HIAL and the Students’ Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh (SECMOL) for violent agitations.
These are allegations advanced by the administration in separate proceedings and must be distinguished from the maternity benefits case.
Nevertheless, the accumulation of administrative and legal disputes has placed HIAL’s institutional functioning under increasing scrutiny.
The maternity benefits complaint adds another dimension to the questions surrounding the institution, this time concerning its alleged treatment of an employee and its compliance with labour legislation.
November 7 hearing could prove crucial
With the matter listed for final orders on November 7, attention is now focused on the Assistant Labour Commissioner’s proceedings and the action that may follow.
The central issues include the alleged withholding of 26 weeks of maternity salary, the circumstances surrounding Khatoon’s removal from official communication channels, the absence of clarity regarding her employment status and the alleged withholding of her experience certificate.
The authority will have to consider the submissions and documentary evidence placed before it while determining the matter in accordance with the applicable law.
For Khatoon, the case represents a prolonged struggle for financial entitlements and professional dignity after what she describes as an extremely difficult experience following childbirth.
For HIAL, it represents a serious test of institutional credibility.
The management must answer why the maternity payment was allegedly withheld despite the employee’s claim that her leave had been acknowledged, why her employment status was never formally clarified, and why the matter required repeated intervention by the labour authorities.
The institution must also explain why its senior representatives repeatedly failed to attend the proceedings, particularly after the authority issued a final direction.
Ultimately, no institution, irrespective of the public stature of its founder or the values it claims to represent, can place itself above labour laws. The protection of maternity rights is a statutory obligation, not an act of charity.
If an institution that projects itself as a champion of humanitarian and progressive ideals cannot demonstrate fairness towards a woman employee who has just become a mother, its claims of social responsibility deserve to be questioned.
The November 7 proceedings will therefore be watched not merely as another employment dispute but as an important test of accountability and respect for women’s statutory rights.
