K.C. SARMA Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is the proprietor of a printing press Known as, the Janambhumi Press, situate at Jorhat and carries on the business of printing and publishing since 1949 by employing a number of workmen to run the concern and at the, time of filing the petition the Petitioner had fifty employees on its pay -roll.

(2.) THE Employees' State Insurance Act (No. XXXIX of 1948) (hereinafter called 'the Act') came in force on the 19th April 1948. As stated in the preamble the purpose of the Act is to provide for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and to make provision for certain other matters in relation thereto. For the purpose of administration of the scheme of Employees' State Insurance, the Act established a body corporate known as the Employees' State Insurance Corporation on which are to be representatives inter alia of the Central Government and the States, of employers and employees and also two members of the medical profession.

(3.) THE Central Government issued various notifications and the Regional Office of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation at Calcutta sent a few sets of forms, to the Petitioner for furnishing particulars and requiring, him to submit quarterly returns, for the purpose of payment of the Employees' Special Contribution to the Corporation by its letter dated the 9th July 1954. The Petitioner on the receipt of the aforesaid letter duly filled up the requisite forms giving the particulars asked for and remitted the Employees' Special Contribution for the quarter ending 30 -6 -54 amounting to Rs. 51/ - only and asked for clarification as to the benefits, to be derived by the employees under the said Act. In reply to the aforesaid letter the Regional Director of Employees State Insurance Corporation, Calcutta wrote to the Petitioner regarding the benefits available under the Act on the 1st September 1954; In this letter it is stated that from the 27th September 1953 the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 applied to the Petitioner and the Petitioner was required to pay the: employee's special contribution and submit the quarterly re -turns in form SC -2 with effect from this date. As some -difficulties in depositing the contribution with the Imperial Bank of India, Dibrugarh branch are being felt, the amount may be remitted to him by the Petitioner by money order. As to the benefits available under the Act a copy of the "Employees' Guide" for the information of the Petitioner was enclosed therewith. On the 7th December 1960 one of the employees of the Petitioner's press Sri B.C. Barua met with an accident and broke his knee. Another employee Shri Chandra Nath Sarma was lying ill since 23 -12 -60 and was in need of treatment and hospitalisation. The Petitioner wrote to the Regional Director, Employees' state Insurance Corporation' at Gauhati on the 26th December 1960, re - questing him to take immediate steps to arrange for proper treatment of the employees. In reply to the aforesaid letter the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Gauhati by his letter dated 29 -12 -60 expressed his inability do anything in the matter on the ground that the benefit provisions of the Act had not yet been extended of Jorhat. On 19th April 1961 the Petitioner received a show cause notice from the opposite parties to this petition that is, the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance, Corporation (Ministry of Labour and Employment) opposite party No. 1 and the Bakijai Officer, Jorhat opposite party No. 2, requiring him to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for failure to comply with the provisions of the said Act and for failure to make payment on account of the Employees' State Insurance Special Contribution for the period 30 -6 -59 to 31 -12 -60. A case for realisation of the said amount as arrears of land revenue amounting to Rs. 1,075/ - was also commenced under the provisions of the Act. After notices were served on the Petitioner, he has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the 12th May 1961 and has challenged the validity of the provisions of Section 73A of the Act. The validity of Section 1(3) of the Act has also been challenged. The Petitioner contends that as the provisions referred to above are ultra vires, the demand of special contribution from the Petitioner is illegal.