Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Employees Union (Citu), Kannur, Dist. Kannur, Kerala And Others On 11 October, 1993

Q: Q. What are the equivalent citations for Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Employees Union (Citu), Kannur, Dist. Kannur, Kerala and Others ?

The equivalence citation are(1994) 1 SCC 268 ; LQ/SC/1993/881 ;

Q: Q. What was the bench assigned for the case Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Employees Union (Citu), Kannur, Dist. Kannur, Kerala and Others?

HONBLE JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH, HONBLE JUSTICE YOGESHWAR DAYAL

Open iDraf

Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Employees Union (citu), Kannur, Dist. Kannur, Kerala And Others

Employees' State Insurance Corporation
v.
Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Employees Union (citu), Kannur, Dist. Kannur, Kerala And Others

(Supreme Court Of India)

Civil Appeal No. 5527-28 Of 1993 (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5194-95 Of 1993) | 11-10-1993

1. Special leave granted

2. The Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 were amended by the notification dated March 27, 1992 with effect from April 1, 1992. By the amendment the wage-ceiling for coverage under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (the Act) was enhanced from Rs. 1600 to Rs. 3000 per month. The amendment was challenged before the High Court on various grounds. While upholding the validity of the amendment a learned Single Judge of the High Court directed that the notification should be enforced with effect from November 1, 1992 instead of April 1, 1992. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error in postponing the date of the operation of the notification. The notification, amending the Rules, was a legislative act. The amendment of the Rules being a delegated legislation, the High court could not have interfered with the date of operation of the notification

4. We set aside the direction given by the High Court regarding the postponement of the enforcement of the notification and we direct that the notification dated March 27, 1992 shall be operative from April 1, 1992

5. We, however, leave it open to the respondents to approach the appropriate Government, if so advised, under the Act for grant of exemption or for any other relief to which they may be entitled. We allow the appeals in the above terms. No costs.

Advocates List

For

Bench List

HON'BLE JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH

HON'BLE JUSTICE YOGESHWAR DAYAL

Eq Citation

(1994) 1 SCC 268

LQ/SC/1993/881

HeadNote

Labour Law — Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 — S. 2(1) — Wage-ceiling for coverage under Act — Notification amending Rules to enhance wage-ceiling from Rs. 1600 to Rs. 3000 per month — High Court directing that notification should be enforced with effect from November 1, 1992 instead of April 1, 1992 — Held, amendment of Rules being a delegated legislation, High court could not have interfered with date of operation of notification — Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 — R. 2(1) — Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 — R. 2(1) — Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 — R. 2(1) — Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 — R. 2(1)