EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION versus DISTILLERIES & CHEMICAL MAZDOOR UNION AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 614 · Decided: 17-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION 
v. 
DISTILLERIES & CHEMICAL MAZDOOR UNION AND ORS. 
JULY 17,2006 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWARSINGH PANTA,JJ.) 
Labour laws: 
Employees State Insurance Contribution-Writ petitions by employee-
C union seeking direction not to realize the contribution from them-By interim 
order High Court stayed the deduction towards contributions-By 
modification of the order contribution from employer also stayed subject lo 
their providing medical facilities to its employees-During pendency of the 
petitions for I 7 years, medical facilities provided by the employer and ES! 
D scheme not availed by employees-Stay order also not challenged by ES! 
Corporation-Writ Petition disposed of by High Court directing employer 
and employees to make ES/ contribution for fi1ture i.e. from date of disposal 
of the petition-Propriety of the direction-Held: Direction of the High 
Court for payment of ES! contribution from the date of its judgment is justified 
in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same does not amount to 
E postponing the enforcement of notification-Employees State Insurance Act, 
1948. 
F 
Respondent-employees union had filed a Writ Petition before High court 
seeking direction in the nature of mandamus not to realize any contribution 
towards Employees State Insurance from the workmen of respondent-employer. 
High Court by its interim order stayed the deduction towards the contribution 
from the members of the employees Union. Pursuant to application of the 
employer-company, the stay order was modified to the effect that deduction 
towards the contribution was stayed from the employer as well, provided the 
employer paid the medical allowance to its workmen. The stay order was 
G further modified to the effect that 'payment of medical allowance' was 
substituted by 'providing medical facility'. During pendency of the Writ 
Petition for about 17 years employer continued to provide the medical facility 
to its workmen and the employees did not avail the facilities from ESI 
Corporation. Interim orders were also not challenged by appellant-ESI 
H 
614 
EMPLOYEES ST ATE INS. CORPN." DISTILLERIES & CHEM. MAZDOOR UNION 
615 
Corporation. In another Writ Petition having similar issue, an application A 
for extending the stay order to the daily/contract workers was filed and the 
same was allowed. The Writ Petition alongwith another Writ Petition was 
disposed of holding that since the employers were giving the medical relief to 
their employees and no medical benefit was given by ESI Corporation, no 
contribution shall be realized from the employers and employees till the date B 
of the judgment. They would start paying ESI contribution from the date of 
judgment and employees might avail benefit of the ESI Scheme. A Writ 
Petition filed by another Union was also disposed of on the same grounds. 
Hence the present appeals. 
In appeal to this Court appellant-corporation interalia contended that C 
order of stay later became part of the final order, amounted to postponing the 
enforcement of the notification. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. High Court was fully justified in passing the judicious order D 
after considering the equities by directing the employer and the employees to 
make Emlpoyees State Insurance contribution for the future i.e. from the date 
of disposal of the writ petition and should not bear with the liability for the 
past inasmuch as the employees of the respondent- employer has not availed 
any medical facilities from ESI Corporation and at the same time the employer E 
was providing the medical facilities due to interim order of the High Court. 
In these circumstances, the order passed by the High Court, meets the ends 
of justice and does not require interference by this Court under Article 136 
of the Constitution of India. (624-E-Fl 
2. The High Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the Union F 
has taken a just, pragmatic, fair and judicious view after considering all the 
equities and facts and circumstances of the case. Extreme hardship might 
have been caused to both the employer as well as the employee since no medical 
facilities have been availed by the workmen from ESI Corporation and the 
employer had provided medical facilities to the workmen as per the Court G 
orders and also had paid medical allowances. (625-G-H; 626-Al 
3. The view taken by the High Court was on account of the peculiar 
facts and circumst

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