TMI Blog1964 (2) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26-2-1964 - GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B., WANCHOO, K.N. SHAH, J.C. AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA SIKRI, S.M. JUDGES JUDGMENT: N. C. Chatterjee, Rai Behari Singh and Udai Pratap Singh,for the appellants (in all the appeals). B. P. Singh, N. P. Singh and I. N. Shroff, for the respondent No. 1 (in all the appeals). C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, N. S. Bindra, V. D.Mahajan and B. R. G. K. Achar, for respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR. C.J.- The short question which arises in these appeals by special leave is whether section 1(3) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (No. 34 of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act) is invalid. By their writ petitions filed before the Patna H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the validity of the impugned section and contest the propriety and legality of the notification issued under it. To these writ petitions as well as to the appeals, the Employees State Insurance Corporation and the Union of India have been impleaded as respondents 2 and 3 respectively. On the 22nd August, 1960, respondent No. 3 issued a notification under section 1, sub-section (3) appointing the 28th August, 1960 as the date on which some provisions of the Act should come into force in certain areas of the State of Bihar. By this notification, the area in which the appellants are working came within the scope of the Act. In pursuance of the said notification, the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No. 1 informed the appellants on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t can proceed to act under s. 1(3) and such uncanalised power conferred on, the Central Government must be treated as invalid. We are not impressed by this argument. Section 1(3) is really not an illustration of delegated legislation at all; it is what can be properly described as conditional legislation. The Act has prescribed a self-contained code in regard to the insurance of the, employees covered by it; several remedial measures which the Legislature thought it necessary to enforce in regard to such workmen have been specifically dealt with and appropriate provisions have been made to carry out the policy of the Act as laid down in its relevant sections. Section 3(1) of the Act purports to authorise the Central Government to establis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guidance given by the relevant provisions of the Act and the very scheme of the Act itself. The preamble to the Act shows that it was passed because the legislature thought it expedient to provide for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and. to make provision for certain other matters in relation thereto. So, the policy of the Act is unambiguous and clear. The material definitions of "benefit period", "employee", "factory", "injured person ", "sickness", "wages" and other terms contained in s. 2 give a clear idea as to the nature of the factories to which the Act is intended to be applied, the class of persons for whose benefit it has been passed and the nature of the benefit which is inten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other cases, the State Government. Thus, it is clear that when extending the Act to different establishments, the relevant Government is given the power to constitute a Corporation for the administration of the scheme of Employees State Insurance. The course adopted by modern legislatures in dealing with welfare schemes has uniformly conformed to the same pattern. The legislature evolves a scheme of socioeconomic welfare, makes elaborate provisions in respect of it and leaves it to the Government concerned to decide when, how and in what manner the scheme should be introduced. That, in our opinion, cannot amount to excessive delegation. The question of excessive delegation has been frequently considered by this Court and the approach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made. We have already mentioned that after the notification was issued under s. 1(3) by respondent No. 3 appointing August 28, 1960 as the date on which some of the provisions of the Act should come into force in certain areas of the State of Bihar, the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No. 1 issued notices giving effect to the State Government s notification and intimating to the appellants that by reason of the said notification, the medical benefits which were being given to them in the past would be received by then under the relevant provisions of the Act. It was urged by the appellants before the High Court that these notices were invalid and should be struck down. The argument which was urged in support of this contention was th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
