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

2016 Supreme(Ori) 955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
D.P. CHOUDHURY, J.
M/s. National Aluminium Company Limited & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and another - Opposite Parties
O.J.C. Nos. 3350, 5552 and 5554 of 1999
Decided On : 21-12-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. R.K. Rath (Senior Advocate) and N.R. Rout.
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. D.R. Swain, Central Govt. Counsel, M/s. Bibudhendra Dash, P.K. Mohanty, N.C. Jena and A.K. Pandey.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principles of natural justice must be adhered to, and a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be afforded before making a decision that affects the rights or benefits of the concerned parties.

Headnote:

Employees State Insurance Act - Exemption - Section 87, 88, 89 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 87, 88, and 89 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, which allow for the exemption of establishments or employees from the Act. The court highlighted the requirement for the appropriate Government to give an opportunity to the Corporation to make representation before granting exemption and concluded that the principles of natural justice were violated by not affording the petitioner-company and Union a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the decision of refusal of exemption was made.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner-company and the Employees’ Union challenged the rejection of their request for exemption under Sections 88 and 89 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the principles of natural justice were violated by not giving the petitioner-company and Union a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the decision of refusal of exemption was made.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to be heard before the rejection of their prayer for exemption passed under Sections 88 and 89 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principles of natural justice were violated by not affording the petitioner-company and Union a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the decision of refusal of exemption was made.

Final Decision: The decision of the Corporation and the Union of India to deny the exemption of the petitioner-company and the employees from the purview of the Act was quashed, and the opposite party no.1 was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners-company, Employees’ Union, and the opposite party no.2-ESI Corporation.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. D.P. Choudhury, J.

The above three writ petitions, having involved common question of law, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. In all the writ petitions, challenge has been made to the validity of the decision of the Government of India in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for grant of exemption under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called “the Act”) from the purview of the Act.

2. The factual matrix leading the case of the petitioner, in O.J.C. Nos. 3350 and 3552 of 1999, is that the petitioner-Company is a Corporate Body having its Corporate Office at Bhubaneswar and other units at Angul, Vizag and Damanojdi and its Captive Power Plant at Nalco Nagar. These two cases relate to employees working in Head Office at Bhubaneswar and Captive Power Plant at Nalco Nagar, Angul. Similarly, O.J.C. No.5554 of 1999 relates to Nalco Progressive Employees Union (H.M.S.) (in short ‘Employees’ Union’) representing the employees of Smelter Unit at Nalco Nagar, Angul.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner-Company that considering the nature of duties, the type of medical facilities available in the locality, involvement of importance in the matter of maintenance of health of its employees, damages anticipated due to non-availability of medical benefits to its employees and considering its obligation to its employees in the year 1982, took a decision to open a full fledged hospital which was fully maintained and managed by its Company in the NALCO Township at Angul. The hospital has got indoor and outdoor facilities in all discipline like Radiology, Ultra Sound, Medicine, Physiotherapy, Orthopaedics, Gynaecology, Surgery etc. Besides providing allopathic treatment, the hospital also provides treatment in Ayurvedic and Homeopathy. Be it stated, the hospital of the petitioner-company not only provides treatment to its employees but also provides medicines to the patients round the clock. It has also fleet of ambulances to remove the patients from plant site accident spots as well as from the residence of the employees and their family members facing any problem.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner-company that the medical facilities available at Head Office of the petitioner-company are also equally available in its office at Angul, Damanjodi and Vizag. It is alleged inter alia that for the first time, the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called “the Act”) made applicable with effect from 16.1.1996 for which letters were sent to the petitioner-company on 6.11.1998 and 5.3.1999 under Annexures-1 and 2 respectively in O.J.C. No. 5552 of 1999 to get ready with the documents for its Captive Power plant for inspection. It is the claim of the petitioner-company that there is a provision in the Act that those who are earning less than Rs.3000/- per month can avail the benefit of the Act. None of the employees of the petitioner-company is drawing salary less than Rs.3000/- per month for which the petitioner is exempted from the purview of the Act. On 6.1.1997, the Rules framed under the provisions of the Act had undergone changes by increasing the per month wage to Rs.6500/- with effect from 1.1.1997. Be it stated that the employees of the petitioner-company at times faced trouble for the reasons that 200 people out of 1500 having salary of Rs.6500/- got the benefit of the Act but rest of the employees could not come under the purview of the Act. Moreover, the employees at Damanjodi and Vizag of the petitioner-company became not covered under the ESI Scheme for which they are not required to contribute. In case of maternity benefit under the ESI Scheme, an employee will be eligible to get the benefit provided there is contribution for 80 days in two preceding consecutive contribution periods those who are eligible to get the benefit under the ESI Scheme, each of them has to make entry into the insurable employment medical benefit against a mont






















































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top