ESIC BANGALORE Vs. KIDIYOOR JANARDHANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12175 of 1977 allowing the said petition and issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents in the writ petition not to enforce the notification dated 18th February, 1976, issued by the State Government under Section 1 (5)of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). The petitioner in the writ petition is a partner of a restaurant situate at Dharwar in the State of Karnataka. By the notification referred to above which was impugned in the writ petition, the State Government extended the provisions of the Act to restaurants and hotels in Dharwar and some places in the State of Karnataka. The Act was not, however, extended to other hotels and restaurants situated in other parts of the State even though the Act had been extended to those parts by notifications issued from time to time under Section 1 (3) of the Act. The petitioner contended that the impugned notification was invalid as the State Government was not authorised to extend the provisions of the Act to a class of persons situate in a portion of a large area in which the Act had already been brought into force by the Central government by issuing notifications under Section 1 (3) of the Act and that the impugned notification was also invalid as the approval of the Central government had not been obtained immediately before issuing it. The learned single Judge before whom the writ petition came up for hearing, accepted the first contention urged on behalf of the petitioner and quashed the notification on that ground. He, however, did not express any final opinion on the second contention. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, respondent-2 in the writ petitionthe Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporationhas filed this appeal.

(2.) THE Act received the assent of the Governor General of India on April 19, 1948. Section 1 (3) of the Act reads :

(3.) IN the schedule attached to the notification we find the classes of establishments to which the Act is extended and the areas in which they are situated. It is true that the above notification is not made applicable to all parts of the State to which the Act has been extended under Section 1 (3 ). The question for consideration is whether the notification is void by reason of the fact that it is not so extended to all parts of the State to which the Act has been extended. The learned single Judge has held that the power given to the State Government under sub-section (5) of Section 1 was only to specify the establishment or class of establishment to which the Act should be extended and that no power had been given to extend the provisions of the Act to any class of establishment located in a portion of a State excluding the other areas in the State where the Act was in force. He held that the contention of the Corporation that it was open to the State Government to confine the notification to certain establishments situated in a particular area or areas of the State excluding other areas where the Act was in force, was untenable. The crucial words in section 1 (5) of the Act which arise for consideration in this case are "to any other establishment or class of establishments". Sub-section (4) of section 1 of the Act applies the Act in the first instance to all factories (including factories belonging to the Government) other than seasonal factories. Under sub-section (5) of Section 1 the appropriate Government is authorised to extend the provisions of the Act to any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial or otherwise.