Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2012 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 1317 - HC - Indian LawsWrit petitions Challenging the liability of Nalco (Project) on non-compliance with the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act), 1948 and Regulations framed therein until the ESI Dispensary functions effectively and starts parallel service to such Contract Labourers - The petitioner (NALCO) manages some of its work in the Project establishment through Contractors by way of tender works and at present its project establishment has contract labourers. Such works are generally conducted through tender process to different Contractors and as per conditions the Contractors used to have their own E.S.I. Code as well as P.F. Code and under the terms of contract they are bound to follow the statutory provisions and responsibility of NALCO comes only when such contractors fail in undertaking such statutory obligations. NALCO has its own hospital at all its units. The hospitals of NALCO are providing the hospital benefits only to its regular employees and providing medical facility to the Contractors' workers as per the settlement, the Management of NALCO entered into a settlement with the Contractors Association representing the Contractors working and the Alumina Mazdoor Sangh representing such workmen on 26.02.2007. Under Clause-3 of the said settlement the NALCO Management has agreed to provide medical allowance @ 4.75% of the earned wages to the contract labourers w.e.f. 01.02.2007 and to continue such facilities till the workmen are covered under the E.S.I. Scheme. The said settlement even though was operative up to 25.02.2008, but the condition as narrated above is allowed to continue as on date and all the contractors workers are being paid by their employer the aforesaid benefits every month and their employer used to get the same reimbursed from NALCO. HELD THAT:- The petitioner-employer has not paid his own contribution and the employee's contribution. This is a clear case of violation of statutory provision. The plea of the management that the ESI authorities have not established the ESI Hospital providing facilities to the contractor labourers cannot exonerate the employer from discharging its statutory obligation of payment of the employer's contribution and employee's contribution which has no relation with the benefit to be provided by the Corporation to the employees under the Employees' State Insurance Act. all the pleas taken by the petitioners not to discharge its statutory obligation are not legally sustainable. Therefore, The petitioner-employer is bound to discharge its statutory obligation under the E.S.I. Act and cannot impose any condition which is not provided under the statute to discharge its statutory obligation. To insist implementation of the provisions of ESI Act and scheme framed therein until the ESI Dispensary functions effectively and starts parallel service to such Contractor Labourers cannot be granted to the petitioner. It may be noted that the benefit provided under the ESI Act is not confined to hospital facility; the benefit covers to sickness, maternity, employment injury etc. The notices challenged by the petitioners in the present writ petitions, are all show cause notices. It does not appear that show cause notices have been issued by opposite parties without having authority of law or without having jurisdiction.the petitioners have approached the Employees' State Insurance Court under Section 75 of the ESI Act, 1948. In the above premises, it is not a fit case where interference of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is called for. Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed.
|