JUDGMENT O.P. Garg, J.
1. The petitioner, which is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at Panki Industrial Area, Kanpur, is undoubtedly covered under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Earlier the employees, whose salary ranged in between Rs. 3,001 and Rs. 6,500 were not covered by the provisions of the Act. The State Insurance (Central) Second Amendment Act was published under G.S.R. 582 (E) dated 23.12.1996 whereby the Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 were amended. The effect of this amendment/notification was that the employees who were drawing wages/salary ranging between Rs. 3,001 to Rs. 6.500 also came within the ambit of the said insurance scheme, as contemplated under the Act. The affected employees who were being paid 8.33% of their basic salary towards medical benefits in cash every month from the employer did not want to be covered by the amended provisions, which came into effect w.e.f. 1.1.1997. Pursuant to this amendment in law. the petitioner-employer made necessary deductions from the salary of the concerned employees for the month of January, 1997 and deposited the same through Challan. The respondent No. 2, which is the Union of the employees approached the Labour-Secretary. Union of India. New Delhi by addressing a representation dated 7.1.1997 praying for exemption from the operation of the Act. It appears that no attention was paid to their request and ultimately the respondent No. 2 had to prefer a Civil Misc. Writ No. 7844 of 1997 before this Court. The said petition was finally disposed of by order dated 4.3.1997, relevant portion of which runs as follows :
"However, I direct that If the petitioner moves such an application before the State Government within two weeks' from today, the impugned circular dated 1.1.1997 shall remain stayed until the disposal of the said exemption application. The State Government will decide the said exemption application within a period of three months of production of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned."
The respondent No. 2 made a representation to the State Government for exemption from the operation of the Act. State Government refused to grant requisite exemption by letter dated 3.10.1997. In the meantime, on account of the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner continued to extend the same benefit to the concerned employees as was being extended to them prior to 1.1.1997, meaning thereby the employees were paid 8.33% of the basic salary towards the medical benefit in cash every month and it is stated that a sum of Rs. 1,14,68.253 was paid in cash to 2923 employees during the period February 1997 and July 1998. According to the petitioner, if no order was passed by the Court, the employer was required to make a contribution at the rate of 4.75% of the gross wages/salary of the employees which would have been calculated to only Rs. 88,18,336 while, in fact, the petitioner company had paid in cash to Its employees a sum of Rs. 1,14.68.253 besides Rs. 19.64,251 towards hospital expenses of the employees and their family members to reimburse the actual expenses. In this manner. It is asserted by the petitioner-company that more than the sum required to be contributed has been spent by it. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1-E.S.I. Corporation has sent a demand notice dated 13.11.1998, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition, whereby a sum of Rs. 2,63,28.640 as being contribution (c) 6.5% on the total wage bill of Rs. 40,50,55.966.90 P. for the period February. 1997 to July, 1998 had been claimed. This notice was followed by reminder dated 10.3.1999 and ultimately another demand notice dated 16.4.1999 has been issued in which the interest of Rs. 55,831.14 has been claimed on the outstanding amount of contribution and through the notice a total sum of Rs. 3,19,11.755.50P. has been claimed. Another demand notice dated 10th May, 1999 obviously during the pendency of the present petition was issued whereby a sum of Rs. 3.23,44,559 as contribution and interest as contemplated under Section 39(5)(a) of the Act has been claimed.
2. The aforesaid demand notices have been challenged by the petitioner-employer on a variety of grounds. One of the grounds taken by the petitioner-employer is that It was on account of directions issued by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7844 of 1997 that the contribution could not be deducted from the salary of the employees and since the benefits which were extended to the employees prior to 1.1.1997 were revived and a substantial amount has already been spent by the petitioner company, the demand for the huge amount of contribution is Illegal and Inoperative : that during the period from February, 1997 to July, 1998 no benefits were claimed under the Act by any one of the emplpyees and. therefore, the question of remitting the amount of contribution as calculated and covered by the demand notices, does not arise. It is also stated that since the amount far in excess of the amount required to be contributed has been spent and some of the employees have left the petitioner company, it would now be difficult to recover the amount, which had been paid to such employees or to deduct the amount of contribution from their salary/wages. On the aforesaid ground, the petitioner-employer has challenged the validity.
propriety and correctness of the demand notices under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed that the demand notices be quashed and the respondent No. 1-E.S.I. Corporation be restrained from realizing the amount covered by the demand notices.
3. Heard Sri S. P. Gupta, learned, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner-employer. Sri Rajesh Tewari appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1-E.S.I. Corporation and Sri V. B. Singh on behalf of the respondent No. 2 Employees Union at considerable length.
4. Sri S. P. Gupta. learned, counsel for the petitioner urged that the demand notices have been issued by the respondent No. 1 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-company and in contravention of the provisions of Section 45A of the Act and since there is no order of assessment under the said section, the concerned authorities cannot take recourse to the provisions of Sections 45C to 45-I of the Act to recover the amount covered by the demand notices ; and that, in any case no amount of Interest could be charged under Section 39(5)(a) of the Act, particularly when the demand for the amount of contribution has been challenged.
5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the above submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-company and find that they prima facie lack merit. The provisions of Section 45A come Into play where in respect of an establishment or a factory, no return, particulars, registers or records are submitted, furnished or maintained in accordance with the provisions of Section 44 or any Inspector or other official of the Corporation referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 45 is prevented in any manner by the principal or Immediate employer or any other person, in exercising his functions or discharging his duties under Section 45 of the Act. The contingency as stipulated in Section 45 did not arise in the present case. It is no body's case that the returns, particulars, registers or records were not made available by the petitioner-company or that the Inspector or any other official of the E.S.I. Corporation was prevented from discharging his duties. In the instant case, all the documents with regard to the consolidated amount of wages paid by the employer to the employees were made available to the Corporation and the Inspectors of the Corporation were afforded full co-operation. There is no complaint from any quarter with regard to the exercise of various function and discharge of duties by the officials of the Corporation under Section 45 of the Act. As a matter of fact, in the circumstances of the present case, the provisions of Section 45A of the Act were not required to be invoked. Since there was no dispute about the total amount of wages paid by the petitioner to its employees during the relevant period and the rate at which the contribution is to be made is well specified, there was nothing to be submitted, heard, considered and determined by the E.S.I. Corporation. It was merely a matter of accounting or say a ministerial act that the amount of contribution was to be calculated at the rate of 6.5% on the total amount of salary paid to the employees. Admittedly, the salary bill was for a sum of Rs. 40,50,55,996.90P. The amount of contribution @ 6.5% comes to Rs. 2.63.28.640. which was to be remilted to the respondent No. 1-Corporation by the petitioner. Nevertheless, in my quest to reach the truth, I had scrutinized the departmental file which was produced before this Court. After the issue of the notice dated 13.11.1998. S/Sri N. C. Varma, Manager, Legal and Sri J. P. Pande, Senior Officer, Personnel of the petitioner-company were heard on 29.12.1998. The memo of proceedings of the personal hearing is to be found at page 14 of the departmental file. This memo is signed by both the above officers. Not only this, the Vice-president of the petitioner-company Sri R. K. Srivastava accompanied by one Varma, perhaps the Manager.
Legal met the Regional Director on 28.4.1997 to explain their point of view. After discussion, a note was prepared which is available at pages 18 and 19 of the departmental file. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the notices of demand have been issued without affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-company.
6. Now in view of the capsulated presentation of the conspectus facts, as given above. It would be easy to take into consideration the main thrust of attack as made by Sri S. P. Gupta, on behalf of the petitioner-company. It was urged by Sri Gupta that since there was an order of this Court that the petitioner shall not make deduction of E.S.I. contribution from the salary of the employees who were members of the Union and that it shall provide medical benefits to them which they were getting prior to 1.1.1997, it would be too harsh to require and compel the petitioner company to deposit the entire amount of contribution for the period February. 1997 to July, 1998. In support of his contention. Sri Gupta placed reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Workmen of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Union of India and others, 1992 II CLR 641 (Kar) in which explaining tht doctrine that the 'act of the Court shall prejudice no man', the E.S.I. Corporation was restrained from recovering the amounts from the employers in respect of the employees whose monthly wages were Rs. 1,600 to 3,000 in view of the Interim order passed by the Court. It was also urged that the petitioner-company had spent much more amount than it was required to remit as its share of contribution and that it is now not possible to recover the amount of contribution of the share of the employees who have left the employment. It was also pointed out that during the aforesaid period no contribution is required to be made as the employees have not been extended any benefits under the scheme of Insurance Act. In order to appreciate the above submission, it would be proper to analyze the aims and objects underlying the provisions of the Act.
7. The object of the Act is to provide certain benefits to the employees in case of sickness, maternity, employment injury and for certain other matters in relation thereto. Section 39 of the Act enjoins upon the employer to make payment of contribution and deduction of the contribution of the employees from their wages at the rates specified in the First Schedule to the Act and to credit the same to their account. The employees covered under the Act in return would receive treatment for sickness, maternity, payment for employment injury, etc. Every human being has the right to live and to feed himself and his dependants. Security of one's own life and livelihood is a precondition for orderliness. For welfare of the employees, the employer should provide facilities and opportunities to make their life meaningful. The employer must be an equal participant in evolving and implementing welfare schemes. In C. E. S. C. Ltd. v. Subhash Candra Bose, (1992) 1 SCC 441, the Apex Court surveyed various functions of the State to protect safety and health of the workmen and emphasized the need to provide medical care to the workmen to prevent disease and to improve general standards of health consistent with human dignity and right to personality. In para 32 of the report, it was held that the term 'health' implies more than an absence of sickness. The decision came to be considered by the Apex Court in another decision in Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Employee's State Insurance Corporation, (1996) 2 SCC 682 and in paragraph 8 of the report, it was observed that health is thus a state of complete physical mental and social well being and right to health, therefore, is a fundamental and human right of the workmen. A part of paragraph 32 of the report in the case of Subhash Chandra Bose (supra) was quoted, as below :
"The maintenance of health is a most imperative constitutional goal whose realization requires interaction of many social and economic factors. Just and favourable condition of work implies to ensure safe and healthy working conditions to the workmen. The periodical medical treatment invigorates the health of the workmen and harnesses their human resources. Prevention of occupational disabilities generates devotion and dedication to duty and enthuses the workmen to render efficient service which is a valuable asset for greater productivity to the employer and national production to the State."
Interpreting the provisions of the Act in para 33, it was held that the Act aims at relieving the employees from health and occupational hazards. In Western India Plywood Ltd. v. P. Ashokan, (1997) 7 SCC 638, it was observed that the claims of the employees against the employees where the relationship of employer and employees exists were meant to be governed by the E.S.I. Act alone. Thus, the law, as it stands is that the employees in the particular specified establishments are necessarily governed by the provisions of the Act. There is no escape from the said provisions. The law will take its own course from the date on which amendment/notification is enforced and in view of this position, each one of the employees drawing salary/wages ranging between 3,001 to 6,500 shall be covered by the provisions of the Act and is entitled to the benefit of the Insurance scheme. Each one of the employees of the aforesaid category shall be deemed to have been Insured under the Act w.e.f. 1.1.1997. This conclusion cannot be countered as it would result in a situation where the primordial scheme of statute is reduced to a dead letter or otiose. The Act has to be given its full play right from the date it was enforced and such an interpretation would elongate the spirit and purpose of the amended provision. Therefore, without doing any violence to the provisions of the Act. the fact remains that all the employees of the category drawing the salary mentioned above, would be covered by the benefit of the scheme of Insurance contemplated under the Act. The law is usually enacted because the Legislature feels that it is necessary.
8. The contention of the respondent No. 2 Union of the employees that the medical facilities provided by the petitioner-employer are far superior and better than those extended under the Act is a matter, which cannot be considered by this Court. There are specific provisions under Chapter VI with regard to the exemption from the operation of the Act. The sordid picture painted by the respondent No. 2 with regard to the state of facilities provided by the E.S.i, Corporation is to be taken Into consideration by the State Government while considering the matter of the grant of exemption. Whether the facilities made available by the State under the Act and the facilities which are extended by the employer are comparable and equivalent Is such controversy, which can be decided not by this Court, but by an appropriate authority. It is true that sometimes, the employees develop rapport with the medical personnel made available to them by their employers and that they have faith in them and. therefore, if that state of affairs is disturbed, the employees are certainly affected. Under the scheme offered by the petitioner-employer, every employee was getting a hike In his monthly salary to the extent of 8.33 per cent of basic salary paid in the form of medical benefits. Obviously, no employee would like to get himself stripped of the said benefit and it was for this reason that the respondent No. 2-Union has made a representation to the State Government for exemption which was ultimately rejected. The petitioner-company did not make any representation in the matter. The order of this Court was that till the representation made by the respondent No. 2 is decided by the State Government, the petitioner shall not deduct the contribution from the salary of the employees and shall extend the medical benefits as were available to them prior to 1.1.1997. The State Government rejected the prayer of the employees for exemption on 3.10.1997. In this manner, the order passed by this Court remained operative, at the most, during the period 12.3.1997 to 31.10.1997. After the rejection of the exemption application of the employees, the petitioner was duty bound under the Act to deduct the contribution and to remit the amount of the employer's and employee's contribution, as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act, to the E.S.I. Corporation.
9. The controversy that no services were rendered by the E.S.I. Corporation during the period the interim order passed by this Court remained in operation is not relevant. A complete answer to this submission is to be found in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation v. Kerala State Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and others. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 148. In that case, the E.S.I. Corporation raised a demand on the respondent-company for contribution in respect of the employees who were engaged by a contractor towards Insurance. The insurance court and the High Court held that since the contribution was demanded in respect of the employees who had since long ceased to be the employees working on the premises, no such contribution was leviable from the respondent-company. To arrive at this conclusion, the two courts below gave two reasons. The first was that since the employees in respect to whom contribution was asked, had ceased to work in the premises of the respondent-company, there is no benefit which will now accrue to them by such contribution and second, the workers are unidentifiable. The Apex Court held that the two Courts misconceived both the objects of the Act and the purpose of the scheme under it. A contribution which is levied on the employer in respect of the employees engaged by him directly or through the agency is for the benefit of all workmen in general, who are covered by the Act. The contribution is irrespective of the fact whether the employees get or do not get the said benefits. It was pointed out that it is also evident from the definition of 'insured person' given in Section 2(14) of the Act. After quoting the definition of 'insured person', the Apex Court observed in para 3 of the report, as follows :
"3. There is thus no quid pro quo between the persons insured and the benefit available under the Act. As regards the finding that the workmen were unidentifiable, what is forgotten is that under the Act, once an establishment comes to be covered by the Act, the employer becomes liable to pay the contribution In respect of the employees in his employment directly or indirectly. The contribution which had become payable for the relevant period has to be paid even if the employees concerned are no longer in employment. Whether the employees are unidentifiable today or not is, therefore, irrelevant so long as the contribution was liable to be paid on their behalf, when they were in employment."
10. After the rejection of the application for exemption, the petitioner is bound to remit the amount of contribution as required under Section 39 of the Act. There are certain disputes about the correct calculation of the amount of contribution as claimed by the respondent No. 1. Sri Rajesh Tewari. learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 pointed out that the controversy raised by the petitioner-employer can be adjudicated upon by the Employee's Insurance Court constituted under Section 74 of the Act. The matters which are to be decided by the Insurance court are specified under Section 75. The relevant provisions may be extracted as below :
"75. Matters to be decided by Employee's Insurance Court.--If any question or dispute arises as to :
(a) to (f) .....
(g) any other matter which is in dispute between a principal employer and the corporation, or between a principal employer and an immediate employer, or between a person and the corporation or between an employee and a principal or immediate employer. 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 Employee's Insurance Court under this Act, such question or dispute subject to the provisions of Sub-section 2A shall be decided by the Employee's Insurance Court in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
The order passed by the Employee's Insurance Court is subject to appeal under Section 82(2) of the Act before this Court provided it involves a substantial question of law. The controversy raised in this behalf can well be decided by the Employee's Insurance Court.
11. Before parting, it may be mentioned that after discussions with the Senior Vice President of the petitioner-company a letter has been issued by the Regional Director of respondent No. 1 on 26.4.1999 whereby as per calculations made by the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 1,15,18,951 as contribution is payable. The relevant portion of the letter reads as follows :
"In view of the above, the contribution in respect of the employees drawing salary between Rs. 3,001 to Rs. 6.500 is payable which as per your own calculation comes to Rs. 1.15,18,951; 1 suggest the amount which has already been calculated by you may be first paid where after your contention that the contribution claimed by us included the wages of all employees, i.e., already covered, coverable but not covered and not coverable will be got verified."
It would be just and proper if the aforesaid amount is directed to be deposited by the petitioner before the Employee's Insurance Court adjudicates upon the various controversies.
12. In the light of the above facts, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1.15.18,951 with the respondent No. 1 on or before 30.6.1999. If the amount is so deposited within the time allowed, the respondent No. 1 shall invest the same in a fixed term deposit scheme of some nationalized bank so that it may earn interest, initially for a period of one year, subject to further renewal. The aforesaid amount shall remain in deposit subject to the ultimate decision of the Employee's Insurance Court. On the deposit of the amount, aforesaid, further recovery proceedings shall remain stayed in pursuance of the demand notices dated 13.11.1998 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition); 16.4.1999 and 10.5.1999, filed with the supplementary affidavits till the matter is finally adjudicated upon at the instance of the petitioner by the Employee's Insurance Court. The petitioner shall now raise a dispute by 30.6.1999 as contemplated under Section 75(1)(g) of the Act, taking all [he grounds, which have been taken in the present writ petition to challenge the demand notices. The Employee's Insurance Court shall decide the dispute on merits after hearing the parties within a period of four months from the date a dispute is raised before it. In the event of failure of the petitioner to deposit the money, as aforesaid, or to raise a dispute before the Employee's Insurance Court within the period specified, the recovery proceedings shall revive.