[Case Brief] Employees State Insurance Corporation v/s Distilleries & Chemical Mazdoor Union & Others

Case Name Employees State Insurance Corporation v/s Distilleries & Chemical Mazdoor Union & Others
Case Number Civil Appeal No 1727 of 2005
Court Supreme Court of India
Bench Justice Dr A Lakshmanan, Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta
Author of the judgment Justice Dr A Lakshmanan
Decided On 17 July 2006
Relevant Act/Sections Employees State Insurance Act
Author of the case brief Aditya Gor


This appeal was filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short the “ESIC”) against the final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court disposed off the writ petition with certain directions which are in challenge in this appeal by the ESIC.

As per the facts, the management continued to provide the medical facility to its workmen as directed by the Court. An employees Union by the name Distilleries and Breweries Shramik Sangh, Meerut filed a writ petition against the State Government of U.P., ESIC and CDBL on the ground that no medical facility has been provided by the ESIC Authority in the area and the exemption application filed before the Secretary of Labour Department has not been decided and sought direction from the Court not to realise any contribution from the workers of the Union under the ESI Act and also sought exemption from applicability of the Act for the employees of CDBL.

Against this, no counter was filed by the State and the ESIC and the interim order was confirmed in the said writ petition. The final order was passed by the High Court wherein the said writ petition was disposed off. The matter was appealed before the Supreme Court.

In the appeal, on behalf of the employers, it was argued that it would be unfair and unjust to make the employer pay contribution towards ESIC since in lieu of the contribution to ESIC, the employer-provided medical facilities as per the directions of the High Court and it would cause extreme and grave hardship to the employer if it is required to pay contribution for the past for no fault of its own. It was, thus, not disputed by the ESIC that the employees were not getting any medical facilities from ESIC and they were, in fact, getting medical facilities from the employer. Under these circumstances, it was directed that no contribution shall be realized from the employer or employees till today towards E.S.I contribution, but from today onwards they will start paying E.S.I Contribution and employees may avail the benefit of the E.S.I Scheme.

Thus the decision given by the High Court was affirmed and the matter was remitted back to be decided on the question of law.

Leave a Reply

Close Menu