$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 28.08.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 18.11.2025

+ W.P.(C) 9748/2017

SHRI MUNNA PRASAD .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. H K Chaturvedi, Mrs. Anjali Chaturvedi, Mr. Sagar Chaturvedi, Ms. Megha Chaturvedi and Ms. Shreeaa Singh, Advs.

versus

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE

CORPORATION AND ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Vaibhav Manu Srivastava, Panel Counsel, Mr. Mahesh Srivastava, Ms. Kaveri Rawal, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advs. for R-1.

Mr. Chandan Prabhakar, Dy Director. ESIC

Mr. Jagdish Chandra, CGSC and Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

JUDGMENT

% 18.11.2025

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):

“A. Allow present Writ Petition under Article 226 & 227 read with Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India for issue of appropriate writ(s)/orders/directions for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order no. P/11/14/11/2016/BFT.-II dated 09.09.2016 passed by Shri Arun Kumar, Insurance Commissioner ESI Corporation, Headquarters, New Delhi;

B. Declare Rules 54, 57 &60 of the Employees' State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 including all other provisions of ESI Act and Rules as Ultra Vires and Unconstitutional upto the extent that they do not provide permanent disability benefits equal to the corresponding minimum wages increasing from time to time under the provisions of The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 or up to the extent they prevent providing permanent disablement benefits equal to minimum wages;

C. Direct the respondent no.1 to pay permanent disability benefits to the Petitioner equal to the minimum wages increasing from time to time to maintain the bare life as guaranteed under Article 21 of The Constitution of India; and

D. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner herein was employed in M/s Sawhney Rubber Industries from 27.08.1988 and during such employment, he suffered an accident on 25.06.1989, resulting in the amputation of both hands. Thereafter, the petitioner was awarded Permanent Disablement Benefit1on 12.10.1990 by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation2 at the rate of Rs. 14 per day (periodically revised till date). The grant of the said quantum of PDB was not unchallenged. Subsequently, although the petitioner worked for ten more years in the same workplace after the accident, it is

1 “PDB”, hereinafter

2 “ESIC”, hereinafter

alleged that vide letter dated 25.01.1999, the management terminated the petitioner’s employment.

3. Post termination, the petitioner filed a claim before the Ld. Labour Court alleging his termination to be illegal. Upon perusal of the evidence, the Labour Court passed an Award dated 05.12.2003 holding that the termination was valid and thereby the management was justified since the petitioner was incapable of discharging the duties assigned to his post. Aggrieved by the said Award, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court seeking reinstatement in employment with full back wages.

4. The Ld. Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10.10.2012, reversed the Award of the Labour Court holding that the petitioner’s termination was illegal. However, it was also reasoned that petitioner could not be reinstated since the factory had virtually closed. Hence, the Ld. Single Judge vide order dated 10.10.2012 directed payment of Rs. 2 lakhs in lump sum to the petitioner as compensation in lieu of the same. Subsequently, the petitioner and his former employer both assailed the said order of the Ld. Single judge in a Letters Patent Appeal3 No. 47 of 2013, wherein the petitioner prayed for adequate/increase of compensation and the former employer assailed the grant of compensation