The right to health is a fundamental right under Article 21, but its enforceability against private entities is restricted, necessitating alternative remedies under labor laws.

ORDER :

N.MALA, J.

(1) The writ petition is filed for a mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to honour its obligation of extending the health insurance to the workers as per the existing practice by paying the premium to the 4^th respondent and to cover the difference between the amount paid by the workers and the due premium amount as advance as hitherto done and hold that the management is not entitled to deduct wages punitively as a penal wage cut as visualised in its notice of 12.09.2025 and reiterated in the notice of 30.09.2025 and to post apprentices engaged through NAPS Scheme in the place of regular workers in leave vacancies.

(2) For the sake of convenience, the petitioner is referred to as ''the Union'' and the 2^nd respondent is referred to as ''the Management''.

(3) The 2^nd respondent herein is a Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of tyres both for off-road vehicles and on-road vehicles. The 1^st respondent has several plants in India, of which the Tiruvottiyur plant is the first one. In the said Plant, about 874 workers are presently employed and all the regular workers are members of the Petitioner/Union which is the only Union and sole bargaining agent of the workmen.

(4) The petitioner is espousing the cause of the workmen who are non-ESI workmen for their Health Insurance Scheme. It is the case of the petitioner that the Health Insurance Scheme was provided by the Company in lieu of the statutory insurance, as the workers who were earlier covered by the ESI benefit, ceased to be covered since they reached the statutory cap of Rs.21,000/- as wages.

(5) The petitioner and the Management signed several settlements and one such settlement was signed in 2019, wherein the health insurance of the workers was provided for under clause [18]. Even in the settlement signed on 24.03.2023, the previous health insurance clause and the procedure adopted therein, was continued. As per the procedure agreed to between the Union and the Management, the Management paid the entire premium amount in advance, by adjusting the insurance amount of Rs.291/- per month payable by it to the workers towards health insurance and by recovering the balance from the wages of the workers in six installments. The Union states that the aforesaid practice was in vogue for the past several years and that the problem arose when the Management, tried to link the Health Insurance Scheme, with that of the engagement of apprentice under the National Apprenticeship Promotion Scheme [hereinafter referred to as 'NAPS'] to work in the Factory, as substitutes for workers who went on leave. While so, since the Management failed to provide for the Health Insurance Scheme, the workers went on strike. Mean while, the Union, vide letter dated 11.09.2025, informed the 3^rd respondent about the dispute regarding the health insurance and engagement of apprentice through NAPS. The 3^rd respondent, called both the parties for talks so as to resolve the issue and on the intervention of the 3^rd respondent on 30.09.2025, the workers agreed to resume work. The Management on its part, also agreed not to take any disciplinary action and continue the status quo prevailing prior to 09.09.2025. However, the Management against the Conciliation Officer's advice issued a notice imposing 8 day wage cut on 12.09.2025, for the alleged concerted act of illegal stay in strike/work stoppage from 10.09.2025, till 12.09.2025. The said notice was followed by another notice on 13.09.2025. The petitioner conten