BASANT KUMAR SARKAR AND OTHERS versus EAGLE ROLLING MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation: [1964] 6 S.C.R. 913 · Decided: 26-02-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
o ::>.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
913 
BA~A NT KUMAR SARKAR AND OTHERS 
v. 
EAGLE ROLLING MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS 
(P. B.) GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. 
SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND S. M. SIKRI JJ.) 
Employees State Insurance Act (XXXlV of 1948)J'. 1(3) Constitutional 
validity--Central Government empowered to apply 
provision1 
of 
Act by notification-If excessive delegation. 
The appellants 
as workmen of respondent No. 1 in all the three 
respondent concerns were getting free medical benefits of a very high 
order in a well furnished hospital maintained by respondent 
No. 
1. 
Respondent No. 3. the 
Union of India issued a notification under s. 
1 (3) of the Employees State 
Insurance Act appointing 
28th August. 
1960 as the date on which some provisions of the Act should come into 
force. in certain areas of the State of Bihar and the area in which the 
i\ppellants were working came within the scope of the Act. In pursuance 
of the said notification, the Chief Executive Officer of Respondent No. 1 
issued notices to the appellants that the me'dical benefits upto the extent 
admissible under the Act will cease to be provided to insurable persons 
from the appointed day and the medical benefits would thereafter be 
governed by the relevant provisions of the Act. The appellants in a 
writ petition to the High Court challenged the validity of s. 1 (3) of 
the Act and legality of the·notifications issued under it, inter alia, on the 
ground that it contraveneli Art. 14 of the Constitution and suffers from 
the vice of excessive delegation. The High Court rejected the plea and 
dismissed the writ petitions. 
On appeal by special leave the appellants 
contende.d that s. 1 (3) of the Act suffers from excessive delegation and 
is, therefore. invalid. 
Held: (i) S. 1(3) of the Act is not an illustration of delegated 
legislation at all, it can be described as coiiditional legislation. It pur-
ports to authorise the Central Government to establish a corporation 
for the a'dministration of the scheme of Employees' State Insurance by 
a notification. As to when the notification should be issued and in 
respect of what factories it should be issued, has been left to the dis .. 
cretion of the Central Government and that is precisely what is usually 
done by conditional legislation. 
Queen v. Burah, 5. I.A. 178, relied on. 
(ii) Assuming there is an element of delegation, the plea is equally 
unsustainable. because there is enough guidance given by the relevant 
provisions of the Act and the very scheme of the Act itself. ·In the 
very nature of things, it would have been impossible for the legislature 
to decide in what areas and in respect of which factories the Employees' 
State Insurance Corporation shoufd be established. It is obvious that 
a scheme of this kind, though very beneficent, could not be introduced 
34 -159 S.C.-58 
1961 
1961 
,,_nt Kumar 
v. 
..,,, Rollin1 
lllilb 
Qa/endragadkar 
c. J. 
914 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
in the whole of the country all at once. Such . beneficial 
measures 
which need careful experimentation have sometimes to be adopted by 
stages and in different phases, and so, inevitably, the question of extend~ 
ing the statutory benefits contemplated by the Act has to be left to 
the discretion of the appropriate Government. That cannot amount to 
excessive delegation. 
Edward Mills Co. Ltd. Beawar v. The State of Ajmer, [1955] I 
S.C.R. 735, Mis Bhikusa Yamasa Kshatriya v. Sangamner Ako/a Taluka 
Bidi Kamgar Union, [1963] 
Supp, I S.C.R. 524 and Bhikusa Yamasa 
Kahtriva v. Union of India, [1964] I S.C.R. 860 followed: 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 
721-723 uf 1962. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order 
dated March 1, 1961, of the Patna High Court in Misc. 
Judicial Cases Nos. 1167, 1122 and 1235 of 1960. 
N,. 'c. Chatteriee, Ra; Behari Singh and Udai Pratap 
Singh,' for the appellants (in all the appeals). 
' 
I( P. Singh, N. P. Singh and I. N. Shroff, for the 
respondent No. 1 (in al! the appeals). 
C. 
K. 
Daphtary, Attorney-General, N. S. Bindra, 
V. D. Maha;an and B. R. G. K. Achor, for respondents 
Nos. 2 and 3. 
February 26, 1964. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
GAJENDRAGADKAR. C.J.-The short question which 
arises in these appeals by special leave is whether section 
1 ( 3) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (No. 34 
of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act) is invalid. By their 
writ petitions filed before the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.