“When once a person becomes an employee in an industry, it is subject to restrictions imposed even on such employment, and further Government can make laws relating to conditions of service.

Articles 41 to 43 of Directive Principles of State Policy clearly mandate the State to bring laws”, the Madras High Court held while hearing a writ petition from a workers' union challenging a statutory notification dated 22-9-2006 issued by Union Ministry of Labour enhancing wage limit for coverage of a worker under Employees State Insurance Act, from Rs 7,500 to Rs 10,000.

The petitioners – Elgi Equipment Workers & Staff Union and its worker, A. Rajamani – contended that 583 out of 1,000 members of the Union, who were employees of Elgi Equipment Ltd (R-3), were sought to be covered by ESI by enhancement of wage limit under the Act. R-3 had provided medical benefits to workers which were far superior than what were provided under ESI scheme.

Because of the impugned notification, if workers were covered by ESI, then R-3 was likely to withdraw such medical benefits.

According to petitioners, workers were entitled to decide what kind of health care they could seek, and no authority could impose any compulsion for coverage of a particular scheme, which was bad.

They contended that if a law was valid at a particular point of time, said law might become bad by change of time.

Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution, was unique.

Inasmuch as workers could have a choice of their own health care, compelling them to get insurance under ESI scheme was invalid.

Mr. Justice K. Chandru, who heard petitions, ruled that this Court was not inclined to accept contentions of petitioners, since a Division Bench of this Court had upheld validity of similar notification.

The health care of workers by Govt was of paramount importance.

For such health care, law also imposed obligation on employer to contribute money.

Likewise, workers too had similar obligation.

Wage limit for coverage under ESI scheme was enhanced from time to time taking note of cost of living.

Reliance placed on Article 21 to defeat the law was misconceived, Judge said.

After making his contribution, even if a worker did not want to avail ESI scheme, the money went for a common good.

If petitioners or their employer thought they were getting similar or superior benefits, the Act provided for an exemption by Central Govt.

In the light of above, there was no case made out to invalidate impugned notification. Hence, petitions stood dismissed.

comment COMMENT NOW