Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
J.N.Sarma, J.
Trade and Industry Employees Union -Appellant
Versus
Employees State Insurance Corporation -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 40 of 1996
Decided On : 07-03-1998
EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948 - SECTION 58, 59, 59A - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT - COURT'S POWER TO ENFORCE LEGISLATION - MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT - PROVISION OF MEDICAL TREATMENT BY STATE GOVERNMENT - ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF HOSPITALS BY CORPORATION - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The petitioner alleged that the ESI authorities had not paid the bills of medical reimbursement, and that the ESI dispensary at Tezpur was not properly manned and staffed, in violation of sections 58, 59, and 59A of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, was a pre-constitutional legislation that conformed to the requirement of Article 39(e) of the Constitution of India, which provides for the health and strength of workers. The court further held that the court had the power to enforce the provisions of the Act, as inaction on the part of the State in securing implementation of such legislation would amount to denial of the right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21.
Issues: 1. Whether the court had the power to enforce the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. 2. Whether the ESI authorities had failed to pay the bills of medical reimbursement. 3. Whether the ESI dispensary at Tezpur was properly manned and staffed.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that it had the power to enforce the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, as inaction on the part of the State in securing implementation of such legislation would amount to denial of the right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21. 2. The court held that the ESI authorities had failed to pay the bills of medical reimbursement, and directed them to reimburse all the amount due to the employees within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, with interest @ 15% from the date on which it became due. 3. The court held that the ESI dispensary at Tezpur was not properly manned and staffed, and directed the authority to set up a hospital at Tezpur and make necessary arrangements for land within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Final Decision: The court directed the ESI authorities to reimburse all the amount due to the employees within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, with interest @ 15% from the date on which it became due. The court also directed the authority to set up a hospital at Tezpur and make necessary arrangements for land within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.
2. The Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 provides for certain benefits to the employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment, injury and other certain matters in relation thereto. This Act was amended in the year 1989 to give certain more benefits to the employees. It may be stated herein that though it is pre constitutional legislation, it conforms to the requirement of Article 39 (e) of the Constitution of India which provides that health and strength of workers, men and women shall not be abused. Regarding power of the Court to enforce a legislation enacted, the matter came up for consideration before the Apex Court in AIR 1984 SC 802 (Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India & others) wherein in paragraph 10, the Supreme Court pointed out as follows :
“Since the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39, Articles 41 and 42 are not enforceable in a Court of law, it may not be possible to compel the State through the judicial process to make provision by statutory enactment or executive fiat for ensuring these basic essentials which go to make up a life of human dignity but where legislation is already enacted by the State providing these basic requirements to the workmen and thus investing their right to live with basic human dignity with concrete reality and content, the State can certainly be obliged to ensure observance of such legislation for inaction on the part of the State in securing implementation of such legislation would amount to denial of the right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21, more so in the context of Article 256 which provides that the executive power of every States and other medical and surgical services as it compliance with laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State.”
3. That case was again relied by the Apex Court in (1993) 1 SCC 645 (Unni Krishnan JP & others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & others) in paragraph 33 of the judgment. So, there is no denial of the fact that the Court can give adequate direction to the authority to enforce the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act).
4. The first grievance 6/tne petitioner in this case is that the bills of medical reimbursement as detailed in Annexure A has not been paid by the ESI authorities though it was duly sanctioned by the authority and it remained with the ESI, for a period of 3 (three) years.
5. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed but in that affidavit-in-opposition, there is not even a whisper with regard to this allegation made in the writ application.
6. The first grievance of the petitioner is well justified and I direct that the ESI authority ie respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 shall reimburse all the amount due to the employees within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, if not already reimbursed, failing which the amount due shall carry interest @ 15% from the date on which it became due.
7. The next grievance of the petitioner is that though section 58 of the Act requires provisions being made for medical treatment by the State Govt, the ESI dispensary at Tezpur is not properly manned and staffed as a result of which employees are suffering. Section 58 (1) is quoted below :
“58. Provision of medical treatment by State Govt - (I) - The State Govt shall provide for insured persons and (where such benefit is extended to their families) their families in the State, reasonable medical, surgical and obstetric treatment:
Provided that the State Govt may, with the approval of the Corporation, arrange for medical treatment at clinics of medical practitioners on such scale and subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon."
8. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that section 59 of the Act requires establishment a
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
