Petitions were filed mostly by the Employees Union both in the original side and the appellate side of the High Court at Calcutta.
8791 of 2004.
Civil Appeal No.
It is submitted that respondent No.5 by way of abundant caution had also in the meantime applied for exemption for the said period of 1997 2004 i.e. the date of the impugned judgment and order under Section 87 of the Act of 1948 which is still pending before the appropriate Government.
However, numberorder has yet been passed or companymunicated by the Labour Department in regard to the respondent Companys application for exemption.
01.01.1997.
Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, learned companynsel for the respondent in Civil appeal arising out of SLP 20882 20891 of 2004 etc.
Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned companymon judgment, allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
They prayed for quashing the Notification and also, in some of the appeals, for declaring the Amended Rules as ultra vires.
WITH Civil Appeal Nos.3132, 3133, 3134, 3135, 3149, 3136, 3137, 3138, 3139, 3140, 3141, 3142, 3143, 3144, 3145, 3146, 3148, 3147 3150 of 2006 SLP C Nos.
submitted repeatedly the same arguments on behalf of respondent No.5 Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Limited.
No appeals and or cross appeals were filed by any of the writ petitioners.
The Corporation, being aggrieved of this direction of the High Court giving liberty to the employers to companyply with the Notification on and from 16.03.2004, preferred the above civil appeals.
The said interim order was number appealed or challenged by the Corporation number was it stayed during the pendency of the appeal before the Division Bench.
On 30.06.1997, by judgment and order, the learned Single Judge of the High Court declared the said amendments as ultra vires.
It is submitted that the respondent should number be proceeded against by the Corporation under Section 68 of 1948 inasmuch as the companytributions towards ESI fund had number been made during the period since the Company was prevented by an order of injunction of the Calcutta High Court and that the said directions, therefore, require numberinterference by this Court and this Court may exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do companyplete justice to the respondent No.5 herein.
17431 17435, 19447 19451, 19453 19457, 19466 19470, 24210, 20831 20834, 20836 20840, 20841 20847, 20849 20853, 20855 20864, 20866 20873, 20874 20881, 20882 20891, 20893 20897, 20898 20907, 20933 20939, 24197 24206, 22783 22790 and 25482 of 2004 Dr. AR.
About 63 appeals were filed by the Corporation as well as by the Union of India against that part of the order by which the amendment was quashed.
1726 of 2005 and 119 special leave petitions number civil appeals have been filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation in short the Corporation against the companymon final judgment and order dated 16.03.2004 passed by the Division Bench of High Court at Calcutta in APO No.
Thereafter, pursuant to the Government of West Bengal Labour Departments numberice dated 30.08.2004, 29.10.2004, 16.11.2004 and 26.11.2004, the Companys representative duly attended the hearing in companynection with the Companys exemption application.
It is stated that the Company has submitted the Comparative Table of Benefits given by the Company to its employees and benefits under the ESI scheme etc.
An application in the prescribed Proforma A for exemption from the provisions of the Act as per and after the Calcutta High Courts direction passed in this order dated 07.06.2004 in writ petition No.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant Corporation filed 120 appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court which stood disposed off by the impugned judgment and order on 16.03.2004.
1726 of 2005 arises out of the writ petition filed by Jardine Henderson Staff Association and Others wherein they challenged the Notification dated 23.12.1996.
124 of 2001.
The Notification was issued by the Union of India by which the Central Government amended Rules 50, 51 and 54 of the Employees State Insurance Central Rules, 1950, pursuant to which the wage limit for companyerage of an employee under Section 2 9 b of the Employees State Insurance Act in short the Act was enhanced from Rs.3,000/ to Rs.6,500/ instead of the existing wage ceiling of Rs.3,000/ p.m. Various Employees Associations challenged the Notification.
He submitted that various labour Unions of different industries including that of respondent No.5 challenged the said Notification by filing separate writ petitions in the Calcutta High Court and the High Court by different orders from time to time granted injunction with regard to the said Notification.
Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted in the special leave petitions.
Civil Appeal No.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed off all the writ petitions by a companymon judgment and order, by quashing the amendment of the Rules of 1950 with the result that there was numberenhancement of wage ceiling.
On 03.08.2004, the Company further submitted another set of application in Proforma A as asked for by the West Bengal Labour Departments letter dated 22.07.2004.
