R.P.MISRA, A.P.SAHI, JJ. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the Unit of the petitioner Union looking after the welfare of the Employees of Hotel Agra Ashok, Agra praying for Mandamus commanding the respondents not to implement the notification dated December 23, 1996 as well as the other notifications issued in this regard, under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and the Rules framed thereunder, primarily on the ground that the Employees of the petitioner's union are enjoying comparatively more advantageous benefits than under 1978 Rules made applicable to the petitioner by the respondents employer and that the applicability of the E.S.I. Act and the notifications made thereunder would seriously prejudice the rights of the petitioner.
(2.) We have heard Sri V.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri Namwar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, who has also appeared for the petitioner (Employers) in Writ Petition No. 50056 of 2002 and Writ Petition No. 26579 of 2005. The facts in brief for deciding the present controversy are that the petitioner upon a comparison between the medical facilities admissible under the Rules of 1978 enforced by the respondents employers and that of the notifications under the E.S.I. Act have urged that there is absolutely no justification for applying and implementing the notification under the E.S.I. Act. This Court; entertained this writ petition and passed the following interim order on February 3, 1997 : "Until further order, the members of the petitioners Union who are the employees of Hotel Agra Ashok shall continue getting the medical benefits and facilities to which they were entitled under the Medical Rules, 1978."
(3.) The aforesaid stay order, however, did not stay the implementation of the notifications issued under the E.S.I. Act. The respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. E.S.I. Corporation filed stay vacation application and a counter affidavit disputing the aforesaid claim of the petitioners and also banning on record the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of E.S.I. Corporation v. K.S.H. Development Corporation, dated October 11, 1993 and have urged that since the validity of (sic) the notification have been upheld the same does not require to be interfered with. Another judgment of this Court dated January 21, 1997 rendered by the Division Bench has also been relied upon to urge that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. In the counter affidavit, the details of medical benefits which are to be extended under the Act have been enumerated in detail in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit. On the basis thereof, it is contended that the benefits being offered to the petitioner are more better and advantageous than that being given by the respondent No. 3, employer.;