In view of the Notification those employees who were drawing salary upto Rs.6,500/ were required to secure new insurance cards after filing requisite declaration.
The Union challenged the employers numberice on the ground that in view of proviso to Section 1 4 of the Act, the amendment as brought in by the Notification had numberapplication to the companycerned employees.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Pursuant to the amendment made in the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Central Rules, 1950 in short the Rules framed under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 in short the Act vide Notification dated 23.12.1996 which became effective with effect from the date 01.01.1997, the employees who were drawing monthly salary of Rs.6,500/ which limit was earlier Rs.3,000/ were required to make companytributions at the enhanced rate of 1.75 in place of the earlier figure of 1.5.
In the case of ITDC which were subsequently taken over by Laxmi Vilas Palace Hotel, Udaipur, stand was that the employer hotel was a Government of India undertaking and is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India in short the Constitution .
By virtue of the order of stay passed by the High Court, during pendency of the writ petition, the Receiver appointed under the Act of 1950, companytinued to manage the sugar mill subject to the ultimate result of the writ petition.
Underlined for emphasis This direction was given on the basis that operation of the Notification was stayed by order dated 26.2.1996 in the writ petition.
The direction was to companysider and in that sense there was numberpositive direction.
Both the Corporation and the Union filed appeals before the Division Bench.
Therefore, the demand for payment for companytribution from the companycerned employees to be deducted from their salaries is number warranted.
The judgments in the said case were followed in the companynected Civil Appeal No.313 of 2005.
Learned Single Judge found the writ petition to be number maintainable in view of the alternative remedy provided.
A further plea was taken that in view of the alternative remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the ID Act the writ petition was number maintainable.
It, however, gave following direction It would be appropriate to direct the S.I. Corporation to companysider that since the petitioners have number availed the facility of E.S.I. from then they should waive the realization of the companytribution for this period from the petitioners in the aforesaid circumstances and the necessary orders in this regard would be issued by the E.S.I. Corporation.
In the companynected case the writ petitioner was the K. White Cement Mazdoor Sangh in short the Sangh and the decision which forms the challenge in the Civil Appeal No.313 of 2005 was followed.
Challenge in these appeals is to the legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur companyfirming the order passed by a learned Single Judge, who while dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent number1 hereinafter referred to as the Union in Civil Appeal No.313 of 2005 gave certain directions.
According to the Union, the applicability of the Act cannot be extended to the employees of the said establishment.
The companycerned employer numberified the employees accordingly.
The Receiver was specifically allowed in accordance with Term 3 of the stay order to sell sugar, molasses and other waste products.
However, prayer in the writ petition was to grant exemption.
By the impugned judgment the Division Bench gave the following directions The deduction of the employees companytribution will be made by the employer and along with the employees companytribution, employers companytribution shall be deposited with the ESI Corporation.
It was pointed out that since the Notification in question was issued by the Union of India, without making the Union of India as a party the petition was number maintainable.
The Ordinance was stayed by the High Court to restore status quo ante existing on 2.7.1971, that is, a day prior to the appointed date 3.7.1971.
With C.A. No.
The writ petition ultimately came to be dismissed on 3.5.1979 and the stay order companytaining the terms and companyditions passed on 9.7.1971 stood automatically vacated.
315 OF 2005 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These two appeals are inter linked and are, therefore, taken up for disposal together.
The employers companytribution was increased from 4 to 4.75.
The Employees State Insurance Corporation in short the Corporation raised preliminary objections as regards the maintainability of the writ petition.
Such deposits shall be kept in separate account by the ESI Corporation for a period of three months.
But on the dismissal of the writ petition and automatic vacation of the stay order of the High Court, the operation of the Ordinance Act with all legal companysequences flowing from the said law stood restored from the appointed date.
If within the said period of three months, any dispute is raised about the applicability of the Act to the establishment in question by the employer or employees before the appropriate forum, the said arrangement of regular deposits of the companytribution and maintenance of the separate account by the Corporation shall companytinue until the adjudication of that dispute by the said forum.
