SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Bom) 765

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
RAMCHAND ONKARLAL AGARWAL
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Decided on MAY 2, 2006

Headnote:Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 1(4) and 2(12) (as amended) - The Act applies to ’Bidi Industry’ - Benefits comparable to those which are flowing from Employees ’ State Insurance Act are not available under existing set of welfare legislations specially legislated for application to Bidi Industry. - Applicability of the Act is provided by sub-section (4) of Section 1 which says that "it shall apply, in the first instance, to all factories [including factories belonging to the Government] other than seasonal factories". The exception is carved out by the proviso "to such Government factories whose employees are otherwise in receipt of benefits substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under this Act". The benefits comparable to those which are flowing from the Employees’ State Insurance Act are not available under existing set of welfare legislations specially legislated for application to Bidi Industry.

       Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 - Section 2(12) (as amended) - Amended definition of ’factory’ covering "Bidi Industry’ under the Employees’ State Insurance Act is not ultra vires. - The amending Act by which definition of factory has been amended and consequently Bidi Industry was covered under the Employee s’ State Insurance Act which is a labour welfare legislation is not shown to violate fundamental rights of the petitioner. The challenge to vires, thus, miserably fails. The respondents’ plea is upheld that a statute should be presumed to be intra vires unless the claimant, who urges that the statute is ultra vires, proves it to be an enactment beyond legislative competence or any patent violation of fundamental rights, or so worded that it would admit an interpretation which is contrary to the very scheme of legislation.

       Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 - Section 87 - Application for exemption - Eligibility. - The application of enactment is automatic and upon completion of procedure of sub-section (5) of Section 1. However, once sub-section (5) is resorted to, i.e., the stage where the State Government may act upon the proviso, or a party to whom the Act has been applied, may apply for exemption and on facts demonstrate that the "employees are otherwise in receipt of benefits substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under this Act" which renders such claimant eligible for applying for being excluded.

Judgment

A. H. JOSHI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned Advocates for the parties.

( 2 ) PETITIONER herein is the proprietor running the business of manufacture and sale of Bidis, having the business location at Kamptee in Nagpur district. Petitioner claims that he employs only ten Bidi-roller home workers, and has two workmen employed to do miscellaneous jobs titled as Tendurwala-cum-Clerk and Relaiwala, who work in the business premises. The petition has been aimed to challenge application of provisions of Employees State Insurance Act to the petitioners factory, in particular, and generally to challenge the amended section 2 (12), i. e. , definition of "factory" and consequential notifications. The prayers read as follows :" (i) strike down the impugned Notification No. S-38012/6/89-SS-1 dated 20-10-1989 issued by the Central Government vis-a-vis the bidi industry in general and the petitioner in particular as violative of Articles 14 and 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution of India; (ii) strike down the impugned Notification No. S-38013/20/82-H1,dated 28-5-1982 issued by the Central Government vis-a-vis the bidi industry in general and the petitioner in particular as violative of Articles 14 and 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution of India; (iii) strike down the amended definition of "factory" under section 2 (12) of the Insurance Act, 1948 vis-a-vis the bidi industry in general and the petitioner in particular being un-constitutional and in violation of Articles 14 and 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution of india; (iv) issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned notice dated 22-3-1991 - (Annexure "a") given by the respondent No. 4 in respect of code No. 23/2613-10- allotted to the petitioner. "petitioner has also incidentally challenged Notification (Annexure-B) applying various provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, extended to Kamptee Municipal limits and Cantonment limits within which area petitioners factory is located, and the date has been appointed for effecting the application thereof. Consequently, the petitioner is also challenging letter (Annexure-A) dated 22nd March, 1991, directing the petitioner to comply with the provision as to contribution etc. , under the Employees State Insurance Act until petitioners application for exemption is heard and decided by Competent authority.

( 3 ) SEQUENCE of events shows that soon after application of Employees state Insurance Act to Kamptee area, the petitioner has submitted an application under section 87 of the Employees State Insurance Act to the State Government and claimed exemption. Annexure-E to the petition is the copy of forwarding letter and accompaniment thereto is the application in the prescribed form. The substance of the foundation of prayer for exemption contained in the application reads as follows :"we seek exemption from the provisions of E. S. I. Act as we are already governed by the Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1976 in which employees are not required to make any contribution amount of cess is collected from Employers only as per section 3. This Act has been specially enacted to cover the Beedi Workers who are living in scattered villages, where the E. S. I. , cannot be implemented for administrative reasons, by appropriate Government. You are requested to sympathetically consider our case and grant necessary exemption from provisions of E. S. I. Act from the date of applicability. " (quoted portion is extracted from page Nos. 25 and 26 of Writ petition Paper-book ). The contents of application in the prescribed form contain certain information stated as the basis for claiming exemption, which reads as follows :


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top