Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Narayan Chandra Rajkhowa And Others

Order

1. Special leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of an application filed by the employees of Associated Industries (Assam) Spinning Unit, Chandrapur, a unit of National Textile Corporation (West Bengal, Assam, Bihar and Orissa) Ltd. [NTC (WBABO) Ltd.] under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in the Employees' State Insurance Court at Gauhati (hereinafter referred to as “the ESI Court”). The case of the employees (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent-employees”) was that they were not required to make a contribution for the Employees' State Insurance Scheme which had been made applicable to them after the increase of the ceiling for applicability of the Act from Rs 1600 per month to Rs 3000 per month on the ground that the medical benefits which they were enjoying earlier on the basis of the NTC (WBABO) Ltd. Medical Rules were more advantageous to them than the benefits under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme.

3. The jurisdiction of the ESI Court to entertain the said application of the respondent-employees was challenged by the Regional Director, ESIC as well as by the employers. The ESI Court by its judgment dated 31-9-1993 rejected the said objection regarding jurisdiction and allowed the said application on the view that since the respondent-employees considered the benefits under the said NTC Rules superior to the medical benefits provided under the Act and the provisions of the Act could not be imposed on them compelling them to come under the ESI Scheme and enjoy the medical benefits thereunder. The appeals filed by the Regional Director, ESIC as well as by the employers have been dismissed by the Gauhati High Court by the impugned judgment dated 15-5-1995.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants, in support of these appeals, raised the question of jurisdiction of the ESI Court to entertain the application submitted by the respondent-employees and has urged that the only remedy available to the respondent-employees was to approach the Central Government for grant of exemption from the provisions of the Act under Section 88 of the Act. We do not find any merit in this contention. In our opinion, the High Court has rightly held that in view of the provisions contained in Section 75(1)(g) the ESI Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application that was submitted by the respondent-employees. Under Section 75(1)(g) the ESI Court has been conferred the jurisdiction “in respect of any contribution or benefit or other dues payable or recoverable under this Act or any other matter required to be or which may be decided by the Employees' Insurance Court under this Act”. The provisions contained in Section 88 whereby the appropriate Government can exempt any person or class of persons employed in any factory or establishment or class of factories or establishments to which the Act applies from the operation of the Act and Section 99-A which contains the power to remove difficulties would not, in our opinion, cover the dispute which was raised by the respondent-employees which involves adjudication of the dispute whether the benefits which were being availed of by them prior to the application of ESI Scheme to them were more advantageous than those under the ESI Scheme. The said dispute could only be adjudicated upon by the ESI Court, especially because the jurisdiction of the civil court has been barred under Section 75(3) which prescribes that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question or dispute as aforesaid or to adjudicate on any liability which by or under this Act is to be decided by a medical board, or by a medical appeal tribunal or by the Employees' Insurance Court.

5. The other submission that has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that neither the ESI Court nor the High Court have examined the question whether the benefits which were available to the respondent-employees under the NTC Medical Rules prior to application of the ESI Scheme to them were more beneficial than the benefits under the Act. It has been submitted that the ESI Court has only accepted the statement of the respondent-employees by saying “it is understood that they considered the benefits under the said NTC Rules superior to the medical benefits provided under the ESI Act”. The High Court also has proceeded on the same basis. In our opinion, the said contention urged on behalf of the appellants must be accepted. The ESI Court does not appear to have gone into the question whether and to what extent the benefits which were being availed of by the respondent-employees under the NTC Rules were more advantageous than the benefits of the ESI Scheme. Since the matter has not been considered in this light, we consider it appropriate to remit the matter to the ESI Court for determination on this question. The appeals are, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the judgment of the ESI Court are set aside and the matter is remitted to the ESI Court for determination of the question whether the medical benefits that were being availed of by the respondent-employees under the NTC Rules were more advantageous than the benefits which would be available to them under the ESI Scheme that has been made applicable under the impugned circular. No order as to costs.