SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 250

1996(2) SUPREME 363
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B Pattanaik, JJ.
Municipal Committee, Abohar -Appellant
versus
Regional Commissioner, E.S.I. Corp.& Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3508 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19933/94)
Decided on 2-2-1996

Important Points

IMPORTANT POINT
The coverage of employees of Municipal Corporation under ESIC Act, 1948 is per se illegal in the circumstances of the case.

Subject

Employment - Employee Benefits

Act Referred

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.136
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION ACT: S.40, S.39, S.45(a), S.75

Headnote

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948-Sections 45A and 75-Constitution of India-Art. 136-Employees of Appellant running Patel Water Works-Held by Insurance Court and the High Court as covered under the Act-Appeal to Supreme Court by SLP-Whether employees of appellant are rightly covered under the Act? (No)

       Held : The question is whether the employees of the Municipal Corporation are also covered under the Act ? The employees of the Corporation are governed by the statutory rules made under the Act and in some cases in other States the benefits of the Govt. scales of pay etc. have been extended. However, the fact remains that they are provided with the health scheme and also eligible to medical facilities and reimbursement of the amounts spent by the concerned employees. Under these circumstances, the coverage of employees under the Act is per se illegal. (Para 3)

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • social security law
    • employees state insurance
      • coverage of employees (Para 3)

Table of Contents

1. Dispute regarding the coverage of municipal water works employees under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. (Para 2 )

2. Whether employees of a municipal corporation are covered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. (Para 2 , 3 )

3. Municipal corporation employees are provided with a health scheme and are eligible for medical facilities and reimbursement of expenses. (Para 3 )

4. Coverage under the Employees State Insurance Act is illegal when employees are already provided with a health scheme and medical facilities. (Para 3 )

5. Appeal allowed. (Para 4 )

6. Are employees of a Municipal Corporation covered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, if they already have medical benefits?

Coverage under the Act is per se illegal if the employees are already provided with a health scheme and are eligible for medical facilities and reimbursement of expenses. (Para 3 )

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 5.10.1993 in F.A.O. No. 589/93 dismissing the appeal as usual in limine. The admitted facts are that the appellant-Municipal Committee has been running water works known as Patel Water Works. The employees working in the Water Works Department are now sought to be covered under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the Act ). When notice was issued to the appellant, they objected to the coverage of employees under the Act. Therefore, an order has been passed under section 45-A of the Act. Challenging thereto, an appeal was filed under Section 75 of the Act. The insurance Court has confirmed that the employees are covered under the Act. Accordingly, when challenged, the High Court in the first appeal dismissed the same. Thus this appeal by special leave.

3. The question is whether the employees of the Municipal Corporation are also covered under the Act ? The employees of the Corporation are governed by the statutory rules made under the Act and in some cases in other States the benefits of the Govt. scales of pay etc. have been extended. However, the fact remains that they are provided with the health scheme and also eligible to medical facilities and reimbursement of the amounts spent by the concerned employees. Under these circumstances, the coverage of employees under the Act is per se illegal.

4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Appeal allowed.

*******

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top