NovaGen Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., located in Hyderabad, is a biotechnology manufacturing company engaged in producing diagnostic reagents and enzyme-based medical testing kits. The establishment consists of fermentation u

NovaGen Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., located in Hyderabad, is a biotechnology manufacturing company engaged in producing diagnostic reagents and enzyme-based medical testing kits. The establishment consists of fermentation units, reagent-mixing chambers, cold-storage rooms, packaging lines, and a molecular biology laboratory. As on 31st March 2026, NovaGen employed 628 workers, including scientists, technicians, machine operators and administrative staff. Out of these, 214 were women employees working in laboratory, packaging, HR and documentation departments. Due to the nature of its production, the State Government classified NovaGen as a hazardous process establishment. The company operates three shifts (6 a.m. to 2 p.m., 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. and 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) to maintain continuous production. As per company policy, all supervisory and managerial employees must work in rotational shifts, including night duties. On 12th January, 2025, Tanya, a postgraduate in Molecular Biology, joined NovaGen as a Quality Assurance Supervisor. Her duties included sterility testing, reagent validation and batch approval. Her work area was adjacent to the fermentation hall, where exposure to disinfectants and biological agents was common. She was provided PPE such as gloves, masks, and lab coats. Her performance was consistently rated excellent and on 10th August 2025, she was promoted to Deputy Manager (Quality Assurance). Her responsibilities increased, and she was required to supervise multiple testing lines and ensure compliance with quality protocols. On 15th October 2025, the HR department informed her that she would now be included in the night-shift rotation. Tanya expressed concerns about travelling at night due to limited public transport and inadequate lighting in the industrial zone. She also highlighted that the company-provided cab service for women employees was irregular and often unavailable during late hours. Despite her concerns, management insisted that rotational shifts were mandatory for all supervisory staff and that no exceptions could be made. During November and early December, Tanya experienced fatigue and discomfort, which she initially attributed to the demanding shift schedule. On 22nd December 2025, after a routine medical examination, she was informed that she was pregnant. She immediately notified HR and submitted a medical certificate advising her to avoid night shifts, prolonged standing, and exposure to disinfectants and biological agents. Tanya formally requested exemption from night duties and temporary reassignment to a safer work area. However, management rejected her request, stating that the rotational shift policy applied uniformly and that the laboratory environment was safe enough. She was instructed to continue performing her duties without modification. On 12th February 2026, during a night shift, Tanya experienced dizziness due to chemical fumes from a disinfectant spill in the adjacent fermentation area. She was taken to a nearby hospital, where doctors reiterated that she must avoid hazardous exposure. She again requested reassignment, but the company refused, stating that operational requirements did not permit any deviation from the shift policy. On 1st April 2026, Tanya proceeded on maternity leave as per company procedure. She delivered a child on 10th May 2026 and formally informed the company on 12th May 2026. Due to shortage of supervisory staff in the Quality Assurance Department, management emailed her on 20th May 2026, asking her to resume duties by 5th June 2026, offering her a morning shift. The communication stated that her early return would help stabilize production schedules and reduce workload pressure on the department. Tanya replied that she could consider joining only if the company arranged a creche facility, as she had an infant and required childcare support. She also pointed out that several women employees had been requesting a creche for years, but no action had been taken. She emphasized that without a creche, it would be impossible for her to resume duties so soon after childbirth. Management responded that due to financial constraints and lack of space within the premises, establishing a creche was not possible at present. They stated that the matter might be reviewed in the future but could not be implemented immediately. The situation created significant concern among women employees, who felt that the company was not providing adequate welfare measures. Tanya's case highlighted issues relating to workplace safety, maternity protection and statutory welfare facilities in hazardous establishments. In view of the above, answer the following: To what extent the demand of Tanya to the management, to provide childcare Creche facility is valid under the Code on Social Security, 2020?