2006 (3) TMI 755 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Rajasthan High Court's judgment confirming the Single Judge's order.
2. Applicability of the Employees' State Insurance Act to the concerned employees.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition in view of the alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court to direct that a statute shall operate prospectively.
5. Interpretation and implications of the court's direction to "consider" a case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Rajasthan High Court's Judgment:
The Supreme Court examined the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, which confirmed the Single Judge's order. The Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition but directed the Employees' State Insurance Corporation to consider waiving the realization of contributions due to the stay order on the Notification. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's direction and further outlined steps for the deposit and management of contributions during the dispute period.

2. Applicability of the Employees' State Insurance Act:
The Union challenged the applicability of the Employees' State Insurance Act to the employees drawing a monthly salary of up to Rs. 6,500 following the amendment in 1996. The Union argued that the Act should not extend to the employees of the concerned establishment, which was a Government of India undertaking and thus a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's directions did not interfere with the applicability of the Act but rather addressed the procedural aspects of contribution collection and dispute resolution.

3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The Corporation raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Single Judge found the writ petition not maintainable due to the alternative remedy but still issued a direction to the Corporation to consider waiving contributions. The Supreme Court did not delve deeply into this objection but focused on clarifying the nature of the Single Judge's direction.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Direct Statute Operation Prospectively:
The Supreme Court referenced several precedents to clarify that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to direct that a statute shall operate prospectively. It cited cases like Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Union of India v. Murugan Talkies, which established that a stay order does not nullify the existence of a statute but merely suspends its operation temporarily. The Court emphasized that the High Court's order did not provide a positive direction to alter the statute's effective date but left the matter to the Corporation's discretion.

5. Interpretation and Implications of the Direction to "Consider":
The Supreme Court analyzed the meaning of a court's direction to "consider" a case, distinguishing it from a positive directive. It highlighted that such a direction requires the authority to apply its mind and take a decision in accordance with the law without necessarily granting the relief sought. The Court clarified that the Single Judge's use of "should" in the direction to the Corporation implied a consideration rather than a mandate. The Corporation was instructed to provide the concerned parties an opportunity to present their case and then make a decision based on the merits.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals, emphasizing that the Corporation must now give the concerned parties an opportunity to present their stand and make a decision accordingly. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, focusing instead on the procedural aspects and the proper interpretation of the High Court's direction. No costs were ordered for the appeals.