The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Employees State Insurance Act applies to all employers with employees drawing salary up to Rs.3,000/-, and the receipt of superior benefits by some employees does not justify denying the benefits of the Act to others.

In these batches of Original Petitions, the points raised for consideration are the same. The grievances voiced in the petitions are also identical. All the petitioners are aggrieved by the amendment made to the Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 amending Rules 50,51 and 54 with effect from 1-4-1992 by notification dated 27th March, 1992, by which the wage ceiling for coverage under the Employees State Insurance Act (for short 'the act ) is enhanced from Rs.1,600/- per month to Rs.3,000/- per month and the rate of employers contribution with effect from 1-4-1992 is reduced at 4 % of the wages payable to the employees instead of 5% and the employees' contribution is fixed at 11/2% of the wages payable instead of 21/4%. This amendment was given effect to from 1-4-1992. The Act and coverage were admittedly there even before the amendment was made. The effect of the amendment is, persons who were getting wages, excluding remuneration for overtime work, in the region of Rs.1,600/- and above upto Rs.3,000/- per month were also required to be covered. It is on behalf of these employees, who were receiving remuneration between Rs.1,600/- and Rs.3,-600/- per month, these writ petitions were filed. Admittedly, persons who were getting wages upto Rs.1,600/- were covered under the Act even before 1-4-1992 unless exemption was given to establishments in individual cases. The main ground for challenge in the writ petition is that these employees are getting better medical treatment and enjoying better medical facilities in the employer's establishments and, therefore, it is apprehended that those facilities will be lost to them if the Employees State Insurance Scheme is extended to them. Their further case is that they have to pay 1.5% of their salary by way of "contribution. Admittedly, no such recoveries were made earlier as they were not covered under the Act. In an attempt to see that the coverage under the Act is not extended to the employees coming under the wage bracket of Rs.1,600/- to Rs.3,000/-, counsel representing the petitioners, the employees or their unions, advanced all possible arguments. It is contended that the notification amending R.50 enhancing the wage ceiling for coverage under the Act from Rs.1,600/- to Rs.3,000/- per month and reducing the employer's contribution from 5% to 4% and employees contribution from 21/4% to 11/2% etc, are illegal as there is no quid pro quo for the levy and collection of contribution. It is contended that the petitioners are getting better facilities under negotiated settlements from their employers and those benefits will be lost to them by the amendment and consequential coverage. This, it is contended, will amount to change of service conditions violating S.9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also contended that the rule is made in violation of S.95 without complying with the formalities. The Rule, it is stated, has not been placed before the Parliament. Petitioners contended that many of them have submitted representations before the State Insurance Corporation and the Regional Director for granting exemption from the coverage. But the rule is brought into force without disposing of their representations. The further contention is, if the rule is enforced, there will be two classes of employees under each management, one getting coverage under the Employees State Insurance Act and the other getting better facilities provided by the management, which, it is stated, will constitute violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The action of the respondent in bringing the petitioners within the coverage was also claimed to be arbitrary. It is submitted that the Act itself is not applicable to the petitioners as they are enjoying substantially similar or superior benefit than the facilities provided under the Act. The benefits such as sickness, medical, maternity, disablement and dependant benefits received by the petitioners under the respective manage