1964 (2) TMI 73 - SC - Indian Laws

The appellants as workmen of respondent No. 1 in all the three respondent concerns were getting free medical benefits of a very high order in a well-furnished hospital maintained by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3. the Union of India issued a notification under s. 1(3) of the Employees State Insurance Act appointing 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 and the area in which the appellants were working came within the scope of the Act.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of section 1(3) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - excessive delegation and contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court considered the validity of section 1(3) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, in the context of excessive delegation and alleged contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution. The appellants, who were workmen of three respondent concerns, challenged the impugned section before the Patna High Court, alleging that it contravened Article 14 and suffered from excessive delegation. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, leading the appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeals raised the question of law regarding the validity of section 1(3) and were heard together due to similar facts.

The main contention raised before the Supreme Court was whether section 1(3) of the Act conferred excessive delegation on the Central Government, rendering it invalid. The Court analyzed the language of section 1(3) which empowered the Central Government to bring the Act into force through notifications. The Court distinguished between delegated legislation and conditional legislation, noting that the Act provided a self-contained code for the insurance of employees, with specific provisions to carry out its policy. The Court held that the Act's provisions, definitions, and the scheme itself provided sufficient guidance to the Central Government, making the delegation permissible and not excessive.

Furthermore, the Court examined previous decisions on excessive delegation, including the Edward Mills Co. Ltd. case, where delegation was upheld as constitutional. The Court emphasized that modern legislatures often adopt welfare schemes with provisions left to the discretion of the government concerned, which does not amount to excessive delegation. Therefore, the Court concluded that section 1(3) of the Act was not constitutionally invalid due to excessive delegation.

Additionally, the Court addressed the issue of notices issued by respondent No. 1 after the notification under section 1(3) came into force. The appellants argued that these notices were invalid as they curtailed the benefits provided by respondent No. 1, which were different from the benefits under the Act. The Court held that the challenge to these notices could not be considered under Article 226 of the Constitution and suggested seeking remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act or relevant provisions of the Act. The Court confirmed the High Court's finding on this matter and dismissed the appeals, stating that the proper remedy for the appellants lay in industrial dispute mechanisms or specific provisions of the Act.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of section 1(3) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, rejected the claims of excessive delegation and contravention of Article 14, and dismissed the appeals without costs.