Holding

The High Court was justified in directing that ESI contributions be payable only from the date of its judgment and the stay did not amount to postponing enforcement of the Act.

Summary

The Distilleries & Chemical Mazdoor Union filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) not to realise any ESI contributions from its members. The Allahabad High Court stayed the deduction from both employer and employees, subject to the employer providing medical facilities, and later modified the order to replace "pay" with "provide". The stay remained in force for about 17 years, during which the employer continued to provide medical facilities and the workers did not avail ESIC benefits. ESIC appealed, arguing that the stay, which became part of the final order, amounted to postponing enforcement of the ESI Act and violated established jurisprudence. The Supreme Court held that, given the peculiar facts—no utilisation of ESIC facilities and the employer’s provision of medical care—the High Court’s direction to commence contributions only from the date of its judgment was just and did not contravene the Act. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court’s orders, directing that contributions be payable only prospectively.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court's stay order, which was incorporated into the final judgment, amounts to postponing the enforcement of the Employees State Insurance Act.
Whether the employer and employees should be liable to pay ESI contributions retrospectively for the period during which the stay was in force.
Whether the High Court acted within its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in granting the stay.

Legislation cited

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948s. 40, s. 41

Subjects

Employees State InsuranceContributionStay orderMedical facilitiesLabour lawWrit petitionMandamusArticle 226Article 136Equity

Judgment

A EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
v.
DISTILLERIES & CHEMICAL MAZDOOR UNION AND ORS.

JULY 17,2006

B [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWARSINGH PANTA,JJ.)

Labour laws:

Employees State Insurance Contribution-Writ petitions by employee-
C union seeking direction not to realize the contribution from them-By interim
order High Court stayed the deduction towards contributions-By
modification of the order contribution from employer also stayed subject lo
their providing medical facilities to its employees-During pendency of the
petitions for I 7 years, medical facilities provided by the employer and ES!
D scheme not availed by employees-Stay order also not challenged by ES!
Corporation-Writ Petition disposed of by High Court directing employer
and employees to make ES/ contribution for fi1ture i.e. from date of disposal
of the petition-Propriety of the direction-Held: Direction of the High
Court for payment of ES! contribution from the date of its judgment is justified
in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same does not amount to
E postponing the enforcement of notification-Employees State Insurance Act,
1948.

Respondent-employees union had filed a Writ Petition before High court
seeking direction in the nature of mandamus not to realize any contribution
towards Employees State Insurance from the workmen of respondent-employer.
F High Court by its interim order stayed the deduction towards the contribution
from the members of the employees Union. Pursuant to application of the
employer-company, the stay order was modified to the effect that deduction
towards the contribution was stayed from the employer as well, provided the
employer paid the medical allowance to its workmen. The stay order was
G further modified to the effect that 'payment of medical allowance' was
substituted by 'providing medical facility'. During pendency of the Writ
Petition for about 17 years employer continued to provide the medical facility
to its workmen and the employees did not avail the facilities from ESI
Corporation. Interim orders were also not challenged by appellant-ESI

H 614
EMPLOYEES STATE INS. CORPN." DISTILLERIES & CHEM. MAZDOOR UNION 615

Corporation. In another Writ Petition having similar issue, an application A
for extending the stay order to the daily/contract workers was filed and the
same was allowed. The Writ Petition alongwith another Writ Petition was
disposed of holding that since the employers were giving the medical relief to
their employees and no medical benefit was given by ESI Corporation, no
contribution shall be realized from the employers and employees till the date B
of the judgment. They would start paying ESI contribution from the date of
judgment and employees might avail benefit of the ESI Scheme. A Writ
Petition filed by another Union was also disposed of on the same grounds.
Hence the present appeals.

In appeal to this Court appellant-corporation interalia contended that C
order of stay later became part of the final order, amounted to postponing the
enforcement of the notification.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: I. High Court was fully justified in passing the judicious order D
after considering the equities by directing the employer and the employees to
make Emlpoyees State Insurance contribution for the future i.e. from the date
of disposal of the writ petition and should not bear with the liability for the
past inasmuch as the employees of the respondent- employer has not availed
any medical facilities from ESI Corporation and at the same time the employer E
was providing the medical facilities due to interim order of the High Court.
In these circumstances, the order passed by the High Court, meets the ends
of justice and does not require interference by this Court under Article 136
of the Constitution of India. (624-E-Fl

2. The High Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the Union F
has taken a just, pragmatic, fair and judicious view after considering all the
equities and facts and circumstances of the case. Extreme hardship might
have been caused to both the employer as well as the employee since no medical
facilities have been availed by the workmen from ESI Corporation and the
employer had provided medical facilities to the workmen as per the Court G
orders and also had paid medical allowances. (625-G-H; 626-Al

3. The view taken by the High Court was on account of the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case. The deduction of contribution of the
members of the Union had been specifically stayed by the High Court and the
same continued for a period of IS years till the disposal of the petition and H
that none of the members of the Union had availed facilities of the ESI. Passing
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A of the final order by the High Court directing the payment of ESI contribution
from the date of the said judgment does not amount to postponing the
enforcement of notification and the same is also not in violation of the
principles laid down by this Court. 1625-A-CI

4. The order passed by the High Court is perfectly justified in view of
B the facts and circumstances of the case and such a relief can be granted in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and that there can be an
exception as in the present case and, therefore, it cannot be said that the
directions issued by the High Court are not correct or that they are contrary
to the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia.1625-F-GI

c 5. The members of the Union included casual, temporary, contractual,
badli workmen and it will be practically impossible to find each and every
member of the Union to recover their contribution for the last 18 years and
in fact some of the workmen who would have been the employees during all
these years would have left, expired etc. and on account thereof also their
D contribution cannot be recovered. 1625-D-EI

Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. UP. State Electricity
Board and Ors., 119971 5 SCC 772; Gasket Radiators Pvt. ltd. v. Employees'
State Insurance Corporation and Anr., 1198512 SCC 68 and Employees' State
Insurance Co1pn. v. Kera/a State Handloom Development Corpn. Employees
E Union (CITU), Kannur, Dist. Kannur, Kera/a and Ors., 119941 I SCC 268,
distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1727 of2005.

WITH
F
C.A. Nos. 3002 and 3003 of 2006.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.5.2004 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6920/1986.

G C.S. Rajan, R. Venkatramani, V.J. Francis, Jenis V. Francis, Anupam
Mishra, Anjali K. Verma, Niraj Gupta, Meera Mathur, S.B. Upadhyay and Shiv
Mangal Sharma for the Appellant.

Gaurab Kumar Banerjee, Pradip Ghosh, Kailash Vasdev, Anil Divan, B.C.

H
Sharma, N.P. Agarwalla, P.H. Parekh, Sameer Parekh, Sumeet Lall, Shakun
Sharma, Mary Mita (for Mis. P.H. Parekh & Co.), Gaurav Agrawal, Avijit
-
EMPLOYEES STA TE INS. CORPN. ''· DISTILLERIES & CHEM. MAZDOOR UNION [LAKSHMANAN. J.) 617
Bhattacharjee, Pinaki Addy, Chiranjan Addy, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Vaibhav A
Gaggar, E.C. Agrawala, S.S. Jauhar, K.V. Vishwanathan, Rahul Ray, S. Rakshit
(for Mis. Khaitan & Co.), Rauf Rahim, Mohammed Iqbal, Prashant Kumar,
Suresh Kumar, Dinesh Verma, Nand Lal, Satish Pandey, Medhavi Kumar, A.P.
Mohanty, Dr. Sumeet Bhardwaj, Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, Vipin Gogia, Jaspreet
Gogia, Mahinder Singh, Pratibha M. Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Rahul Ajatshatru,
Tejveer S. Bhatia, Meera Mathur, Deepak Sabharwal, Vikrant Yadav, B.R.
B
Sabharwal, S. Rajappa, Jay Savla, Mis. Corporate Law Group, Raj Kumar
Gupta, Sheo Kumar Gupta, Bhanu Pratap Gupta, Smt. Rakhi Banerjee, A.N.
~-
Bardiyar, Rajindra Dhawan, Sefali Dhawan, Parmanand Gaur, P.N. Jha, Anita
Shenoy, Dhruv Mehta, Harsvardhan Jha, Yashraj Singh Deora, Mis. K.L.
Mehta & Co., A. Bhattacharya, Rana Mukherjee, Siddharth Gambhir, Goodwill c
Indeevar, Arun Kumar Sinha, Mukesh Kumar Sinha, K.V. Mohan, Krishnendu
Datta, Nitin Jain, Kumud Lata Das, Kishan Data, Sushil Kumar Jain, Sarad
Singhaniya, H.D. Thawri, Puneet Jain, Rani Maheshwari, Bharat Sangal, R.R.
Kumar, Samyadip Chatterji, L. Roshmani, Jatin Zaveri, Pradeep Misra, Shalini
Kumar, Rikusarma, Ghanshyam Joshi, Partha Gil, Mahesh Agarwal and Rishi
Agarwal for the Respondents. D

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Civil Appeal No. I 727 of2005.

This appeal was filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (in E
short the "ESIC") against the final judgment and order dated 11.05.2004
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P No. 6920
of 1986. The High Court disposed off the writ petition with certain directions
which are in challenge in this appeal by the ESIC.
F
C.A. No.300212006@ SLP (C) NO. 18215 OF 2004

Leave granted.

This appeal was filed by the ESIC against the final judgment and order
dated 11.05.2004 passed by the said Court in C.M.W.P No. 27607 of 1998
which was disposed off by the High Court with certain directions which are
G
....
in challenge in this appeal.

C.A. No.300312006 @ SLP (C) NO. 4202 OF 2005
~·

Leave granted. H
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A This appeal was filed by the ESlC against the final judgment and order
dated 16.09.2004 passed by the said Court in C.M.W.P. No. 32843 of 1997
which was disposed off by the High Court with certain directions as covered
by the earlier decision in C.M.W.P. No. 6920of1986.

Since parties to the above three appeals and the question of law to be
B decided are the same, by consent of parties, all the three matters were taken
up together for final disposal. Respective employer, the Trade Union and the
State of U.P. have been imp leaded as party respondents in these appeals.
1

We shall now take up the facts mentioned in civil appeal No. 1727 of
2005 for reference. Since the facts are identical in other matters we are not
c stating them in the other cases.

A writ petition No. 6920 of 1986 was filed by the Distilleries and Chemical
Mazdoor Union, Meerut against the State ofU.P., the ESIC and the Company,
namely, Central Distilleries and Breweries Limited (CSBL) merged with Shaw
D Wallace Distilleries Limited (SWDL) for seeking direction in the nature of
mandamus not to realise any contribution from the workmen of respondent
No.2-herein.

The writ petition was admitted and an interim order was passed stating
that, meanwhile no deduction shall be made towards the contribution of
E ESIC from the members of the petitioners-Union under the ES! Act.
An application was filed on behalf of respondent No.2 herein for vacation/
suitable modification of the order, in order to safeguard the interest of the
Company keeping in view all the provisions of the Act. On 17.07.1987, the
Court, after hearing all the parties on the application of the company, confirmed
F the previous order dated 19.05.1986 with the modification that "no deduction
shall be made from the employer or the employees towards the contribution
under the ES/ Act provided the respondent-employers shall pay the medical
allowance to its workmen. "

An application for modification of the order dated 17.07.1987 was filed
G by respondent No.2 herein to substitute the words "provide" and "facility"
instead of "pay" and "allowance". The Court modified the above order dated
17.07.1987 as sought for.

The writ petition remained pending and no contribution was either
H deducted or deposited. Management continued to provide the medical facility
EMPLOYEES STATE INS. CORPN. " DISTILLERIES & CHEM. MAZDOOR UNION [LAKSHMANAN. l) 6 J9

to its workmen as directed by the Court, which fact has not been disputed A
either by the ESIC or by the workmen. The ESIC did not file any counter
affidavit/opposition to the writ petition. The writ petition was finally heard
and disposed off along with another writ petition No. 27607 of I998 which had
been filed by another employees Union.

Another Union - Distilleries and Breweries Shramik Sangh, Meerut filed B
writ petition No. 27607 of I998 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 C
ESI Act and also sought exemption from applicability of the Act for the
employees of CDBL.

An interim order was passed in the writ petition to the extent....

"No recovery should be made under the ES! Scheme from the salary D
of the workmen. Mr. Burman submits on instruction that all the members
of the Union are agreed and have given undertaking through him that
in case the petition fails in the event amount recoverable for the
period during the interim order remain operative shall be recovered
from their salary in a suitable monthly instalment."
.- E
No counter was filed by the State and the ESIC a11d the interim order
was confirmed in the said writ petition. An application for amendment of the
writ petition was filed by the Union in the said writ petition for extending the
coverage to the daily/contractor workers since they are also the members of
their Union. The aforesaid amendment application was allowed .. The CDBL
filed an application for stay. Final arguments were heard by the High Court F
and a detailed judgment was passed in the writ petition No. 6920 of I986 and
by the same order writ petition No. 27607 of 1998 was also disposed off. The
Court has ordered:

"Under these circumstances, we direct that no contribution shall be
realized from the employer or employees till today towards E.S.I G
contribution, but from today onwards they will start paying E.S.I
contribution and employee may avail benefit of the E.S.I Scheme"

Civil Appeal No.300312006 @ SLP NO. 4202 OF 2005
This appeal filed against the final judgment and order dated 16.09.2004 in H
620 SUPRSME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A C.M.W.P. No. 32843of1997 was disposed off by a learned Single Judge of
the High Court. The said writ petition was disposed off on the ground that
the controversy in this writ petition is covered by the decision of the said
Court rendered in writ petition No. 6920 of 1986. Considering the aforesaid
submission, learned Single Judge disposed off the writ petition with a direction
that no contribution shall be realised from the employer or employees till
B today i.e. 16.09.2004, but from f6.09.2004 onwards they will start paying ESI
contribution and the employee may avail benefit of the ESI scheme. With the
aforesaid observations, the writ petition was disposed off finally.

We heard Mr. C.S. Rajan, learned senior counsel ably assisted by Mr.
C V.J. Francis for the appellant-Corporation and Mr. Anil Divan, learned senior
counsel for the employers and also heard learned counsel appearing for the
respective employees Union. Mr. C.S. Rajan, learned senior counsel made the
following submissions:

(a) that the impugned order of stay granted earlier, and later became
D part of the final order, does not amount to postponing the
enforcement of notification and, therefore, is in clear violation of
the principles laid down by this Court in various decisions.
(b) that the impugned direction is not in contravention of the principles
laid down by this Court in Kanoria Chemicals and Industries
Ltd. and Ors. v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Ors. repot ted
E
in [1997] s sec 772.
(c) that the directions given by the High Court not to deduct
contributitms are not contrary to the law laid down qy this Court
in Gasket Radiators Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance
Corporation and Anr., reported in [1985] 2 SCC 68.
F
(d) that the High Court has failed to appreciate that after the dismissal
of the main proceedings, the stay and other interim orders granted
therein comes to an end and it is the duty of the Court to put
parties in the same position they would have been but for the
interim ordus of this Court.
G
(e) that when once the main case has been disposed off the parties
are relegated to the original position and the management is liable
to pay the contributions of the employer and the employees.
Further, the ESI Act is a beneficial piece of social security
legislation, provisions of the Act will have to be construed with
H
EMPLOYEES STATE INS CORPN. ''·DISTILLERIES & CHEM. MAZDOOR UNION [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 62 J
that end in view to promote the scheme and avoid any mischief. A
(I) that the impugned order of stay granted earlier and later became
part of the final order, amounted to postponing the enforcement
of the notification and, therefore, it is in clear violation of the
principles laid down by this Court in Employees· State Insurance
Corpn. v. Kera/a State Handloom Development Corpn. Employees B
Union (CITU), Kannur, Dist. Kannur, Kera/a and Ors., [1994] I
SCC 268. The learned senior counsel has also relied on certain
other judgments of this Court.
(g) that the impugned direction of the High Court will have far-
reaching implications on the enforcement of the provisions of the C
Act and will also give benefit to those employers by themselves
or through employees to obtain stay orders from the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia and thereby assisting
them indirectly and, therefore, this is a fit case for interference by
this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
D
Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. I Mazdoor Union
and the respondent No.2-employer.

Mr. Anil Divan, learned senior counsel invited our attention to the
various orders passed by the High Court in the writ petition on 19.05.1986,
17.07.1987, 09.03.1988 and the final order passed by the High Court in the E
impugned judgment. Our attention was also drawn to the petition to vacate
the ex-parte order dated 19.05.1986 passed by the High Court with a prayer
to suitably modify to safeguard the interest of the management with regard
to the anomalies mentioned in the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter
affidavit that the workmen got the facilities contemplated under the ES! Act F
and that the workmen did not get the medical allowance but the management
pays more in the form of its ES! contribution than what it woultl pay in the
form of medical allowance to the workmen. It is also stated that the distance
of the dispensary from the factory is nearly 8 kms. which is highly inconvenient
for the workmen to really avail of the facility intended to be provided to them.
In view of the ex-parte order, the ES! deductions of the members of the Union G
have been stopped and in compliance with the Court's Order the management
was not deducting the ES! contributions of its workmen. However, the aforesaid
order, according to the learned senior counsel for the management, though
has been complied with is creating, inter alia, many anomalies.

(a) The Court has not made it clear as to what shall be the effect of H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A the stoppage of the deductions on the statutory liability of the
answering respondent contemplated under sections 40 and 41 of
the ESI Act.
(b) It has also not been made clear as to what shall be the
consequences if a workman dies or sustains injury during the
B substance of the interim order as it is very likely that the
Corporation in such an event may take a stand of not
compensating the workmen for the injury sustained as their
contribution is not being paid to the Corporation.
(c) That the answering respondent is nevertheless depositing 5 per
C cent contribution without any benefit to its workmen and it is just
and proper that so long as the deductions are not being made
the answering respondent should also not be obliged to pay its
E.S.l contribution with regard to its workmen.

With the above avennents, the management employer filed the petition
D to vacate the ex-parte order granted by the High Court on 19.05.1986 or to
suitably modify the same to safeguard the interest of the management in
regard to the anomalies mentioned in the paragraphs (supra). However, the
High Court, by its order dated I 7.07.1987 instead of vacating the interim stay
confirmed the same with certain modifications that no deduction shall be
made either from the employer or from the employees towards the contribution
E under the ES! Act. The said order was again modified on 09.03.19811 to the
effect that the words "payments" and "allowances" occurring in order dated
17.07.1987 shall be substituted by the words "provide" and "facility".

That the appellant has not referred to or mentioned about the two
F important orders that has been passed by the High Court. The said order
would show that:

"The employer company have initially opposed the writ petition filed
by the Employees Union and had also prayed for vacation of the ex-
parte interim order dated 19.05.1986 passed by the High Court and/
G or prayed for suitable modification of the order to safeguard the
interest of the respondent company (employer), in view of the
provisions of the Act. However, the High Court after hearing the
parties, confinned the interim order dated I9.05.1986 and directed that
no deduction shall be made either from the employer or the employees
towards the contribution under ES! Act provided the respondent
H employer shall pay medical allowance to its workmen. Respondent
EMPLOYEES STATE INS. CORPN. '"DISTILLERIES & CHEM. MAZDOOR UNION (LAKSHMANAN, J.] 623

No.2 again applied for modification instead of medical allowance, A
Respondent No.2 was providing/willing to provide medical facilities.
The High Court thereafter by order dated 09.03.1988 substituted the
words "payment" and "allowances" with "provide" and "facilities".
Therefore with the modification of the initial ex parte order dated
19.05. 1986 by subsequent orders dated 17.07.1987 and 09.03. 1988, the B
respondent No.2 was restrained from making contribution to ESIC and
was directed to provide medical facilities to the employees.

ESIC was not providing medical facilities to the employees in
asmuch as the employees themselves contented in the writ petition
that the hospital of ESIC was more than 12 kms away from the factory C
and even ordinary medical facilities are not available to them and it
was therefore, impossible for them to avail of the facilities."

It is submitted by learned senior counsel that under compulsion of the
above order, the employer company did, in fact, provide medical facilities to
the employees as per directions of the High Court and that the employees D
were also fully satisfied with the medical facilities provided by the employer
and have never raised any grievance till date. It is also submitted that the
respondent-company has spent large amount of money in view of the order
of the High Court for providing medical facilities and subsequently also paid
medical allowances to the employees. It is stated that if the High Court had
not passed the order of injunction, the respondent-company would have E
contributed to the ESIC instead of spending monies on the medical facilities
and allowances. In these circumstances, Mr. Anil Divan submitted that it
would be unfair and unjust to make the employer to 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 F
and grave hardship to the employer if it is required to pay contribution for
the past for no fault of its own. It is also submitted that no party should suffer
because of the orders of the Court if duly complied with.

We see much force, substance and merit in the above submission of the
learned senior counsel. G
It is further pertinent to see that the first interim order was passed by
the High Court on 19.05.1986 and it was modified on the application of the
respondent No.2 on 17.07.1987 and 09.03.1988. The interim orders were not
challenged at all by the ESIC and were thus accepted. Despite the pendency
of the matter for 17 years, the ESIC did not file any reply or counter affidavit H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A in the writ petition nor filed any application for variation/vacation of the stay
as stated in the special leave petition and in fact accepted the interim order.
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.

B The High Court observed as follows:-

"However, since there was an interim order of this court dated
19.05.1986 as modified on 17.07.1987, which directed that no deduction
shall be made from the employer or employees towards contribution
for E.S.I, and in fact E.S.I facility was not availed by the employees
c of respondent No. 3 hence in our opinion it would be unfair if the
respondent No.3 and its employees are directed to pay contribution
for the period when they never got this facility. Learned Counsel for
respondent No.3 has stated that the respondent No.3 was giving
medical relief to its employees on its own and no medical benefit was
D given by the E.S.I Corporation. Under these circumstances, we direct
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 benefit of the
E.S.I Scheme. With the above observation, this petition is disposed
off finally."
E
In our opinion, the High Court was fully justified in passing the judicious
order after .considering the equities by directing the employer and the
employees to make ESIC contribution for the future i.e. from the date of
disposal of the wr!t petition and should not bear with the liabili~y for the past
inasmuch as the employees of the respondent No.2 has not availed any
F medical facilities from ESIC and at the same time the employer was providing
the medical facilities due to interim order of the High Court. In these
circumstances, the order passed by the High Court, in our considered opinion,
meets the ends of justice and does not require interference by this Court
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
G
This apart it is important to note that in the past 17 years when the
interim orders passed by the High Court was enforced, several employees
have left/retired and were paid the entire salary without any deduction and,
therefore, it will be impossible for the employer to recover the part of the
employees contribution in respect of the ESIC from the employees.
H
EMPLOYEES STATE INS. CORPN. "·DISTILLERIES & CHEM. MAZDOOR UNION [LAKSHMANAN, J] 625
A separate counter affidavit was filed by the Mazdoor Union in support A
of the employer.

As regards the question of law raised by learned counsel for the ESJC
regarding the view taken by the High Court, we are of the opinion that the
view taken by the High Court was on account of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case. As already. noticed, the deduction of contribution B
of the members of the Union had been specifically stayed by the High Court
and the same continued for a period of 18 years till the disposal of the petition
and that none of the members of the Union had availed facilities of the ESL
In our view, passing of the final order by the High Court directing the
payment of ES! contribution from the date of the said judgment does not C
amount to postponing the enforcement of notification and the same is also
not in violation of the principles laid down by this Court in the various
judgments referred to above. There has been no postponement of the
enforcement of the notification in view of the peculiar circumstances of the
case, namely, the non-availability of the facilities, non-deduction of contribution
from the members of the Union for 18 long years, provision of medical relief D
by the Management. The High Court had directed deduction of contribution
with effect from the date of the judgment, which, in our opinion, is perfectly
justified.

This apart, the members of the Union included casual, temporary,
contractual, badli workmen and it will be practically impossible to find each E
and every member of the Union to recover their contribution for the last 18
years and in fact some of the workmen who would have been the employees
during all these years would have left, expired etc. and on account thereof
also their contribution cannot be recovered. The judgments relied on by
counsel for the appellant are distinguishable on facts and on Jaw. The order p
passed by the High Court, in our opinion, is perfectly justified in view of the
facts and circumstances of the case and it has been repeatedly held by this
Court that such a relief can be granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case and that there can be an exception as in the present case and,
therefore, it cannot be said that the directions issued by the High Court are
not correct or that they are contrary to the power under Article 226 of the G
Constitution of India.

The High Court, in our opinion, while disposing off the writ petition
filed by the Union has taken a just, pragmatic, fair and judicious view after
considering all the equities and facts and circumstances of the case. Extreme H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A hardship might have been caused to both the employer as well as the employee
since no medical facilities have been availed by the workmen from ESIC and
the employer had provided medical facilities to the workmen as per the Court
orders and also had paid medical allowances.

In the result, all the three appeals are dismissed and the judgments
B passed by the High Court are affirmed. However, there will be no order as to
costs.

The question of law is left open to be decided in an appropriate case.

K.K.T. Appeals dismissed.
c