ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Mootham, C. J. and M. L. Chaturvedi, J.
ANAND KUMAR BINDAL - Appellant
Versus
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 932 Of 1955
Decided On : 10/05/1956
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is the occupier of a factory in Saharanpur which is engaged in manufacture of cloth. He was called upon by the regional Director of the Employees State Insurance Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 12,484 as a special contribution payable by an employer under Chap. VA of the Employees State Insurance act in respect of a period extending from 1st April 1953 to 31st March, 1955. The petitioner disputed his liability for payment of this sum or any part of it, and as a consequence of his refusal to pay steps are now being taken against him for recovery of the amount claimed as though it were an arrear of land revenue, and he is threatened with prosecution under Section 85 of the Act. The petitioner contends that the demand is illegal, and the principal relief which he seeks by this petition is the issue of a mandamus directing the respondents not to recover from him any contribution under the provisions oi the Employees state Insurance Act.
( 2 ) THE Employees State Insurance Act became law on the 19th April, 1948. Its purpose as stated in the preamble is to provide for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and to make provision for certain other matters in relation thereto. For the purpose of administration of the scheme of Employees State Insurance the Act established a body corporate known as the Employees State Insurance Corporation on which are to be representatives inter alia of the. Central Government and the States, of employers and employees and also two members of the medical profession. A standing Committee and a Medical Benefit Council were also established, the former to administer the affairs of the Corporation subject to its general supervision and the latter to advise the Corporation on matters relating to the administration of medical benefits.
( 3 ) THE Act also established a Fund known as the Employees State Insurance Fund which is to be administered by the Corporation for the purposes of the Act, and into which will be paid all contribution-recoverable under the Act and such other monies as are received on behalf of the corporation. The scheme is to be financed by contributions from employers and employees for which provision is made in Chapter IV. The scale of contribution is dependent on the rate of wages paid to the employees, the employers contribution being approximately double that of the employees.
( 4 ) CHAPTER V of the Act specifies the benefits to which insured persons--that is to say, all employees in factories or establishments to which the Act applies--and their dependants will be entitled. The benefits are five, referred to respectively as sickness benefit, maternity benefit, disablement benefit, dependants benefit and medical benefit. The Act also made provision for the adjudication of disputes and claims and for the constitution of an Employees Insurance corporation, but with such provisions we have now no concern.
( 5 ) IN 1951 the Act was amended by Act 53 of that year. The Amending Act introduced a new chapter in the principal Act--Chapter VA--which enacted that so long as the provisions of that chapter remain in force every employer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, pay to the Corporation a special contribution at such rate as the Central Government may fix not exceeding five per cent of his total wages bill. It further provided that this special contribution in the case of factories or establishments situated in an area in which the provisions of both Chapters IV and V are in force shall be fixed at a rate higher than that in the case of factories or establishments situated in an area in which the provisions, of these Chapters are not in force. The Special contribution is, by Section 73d of the act, made recoverable as if it were an arrear of land revenue.
( 6 ) THE Act extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir (Se
State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose
Jagannath Bux Singh v. United Provinces
REFERRED TO : Biswambhar Singh v. State of Orissa
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.