02 February 1996
Supreme Court
Download

MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs REGIONAL COMMR.,E.S.I.

Bench: RAMASWAMY,K.
Case number: C.A. No.-003508-003508 / 1996
Diary number: 7217 / 1994
Advocates: Vs VIJAY K. MEHTA


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, ABOHAR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, E.S.I. CORPN. & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (3)    51        1996 SCALE  (2)381

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This appeal  by special leave arises from the  order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 5.10.1993 in F.A.O. No.589/93 dismissing  the appeal  as usual  in  limine.  The admitted facts  are that  the appellant-Municipal  Committee has been running water works known as Patel Water Works. The employees working  in the  Water Works  Department  are  now sought to  be covered under the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’). When notice was issued to the appellant they objected to the coverage of employees under  the Act. Therefore an order has been passed under section  45-A of  the  Act.  Challenging  thereto,  an appeal was  filed under Section 75 of the Act. The insurance Court has confirmed that the employees are covered under the Act. Accordingly,  when challenged,  the High  Court in  the first appeal dismissed the same. Thus this appeal by special leave.      The question  is whether the employees of the Municipal Corporation are also covered under the Act? The employees of the Corporation  are governed  by the  statutory rules  made under the Act and in some cases in other States the benefits of the Govt. scales of pay etc. have been extended. However, the fact  remains that  they are  provided with  the  health scheme  and   also  eligible   to  medical   facilities  and reimbursement  of   the  amounts   spent  by  the  concerned employees.  Under   these  circumstances,  the  coverage  of employees under the Act is Der se illegal.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.