MANAGEMENT OF DIOCESAN PRESS Vs. LABOUR COURT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question arising for decision in this writ petition is whether an employee governed by the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is eligible to receive wages as per the conditions of service for the period during which he was on sick leave without deduction of the sickness benefits that he has received under the Act from the wages payable to him by the employer. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition may be set out as follows. The second respondent, Vithyaraj filed along with the other employees Claim Petition No. 1050 of 1970 on the file of the Labour Court, Madras under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of certain benefits due to them in terms of money. We are not concerned in this writ petition with the claims made by the other two employees. The Second Respondent had made an additional claim for half salary for the period between 2-10-1969 and 4-11-1269 during which period he was on sick leave and was receiving benefits under the Act. Originally the claim petition was allowed by the Labour Court. Against the Order of the Labour Court the employer filed W. P. No. 2118 of 1973. This Court allowed the writ petition in so far as the claim of the Second Respondent to wages for the period of sick leave was concerned and this Court remand the matter for fresh disposal on the said point with a direction to the Labour Court to consider the effect of Regulation 97 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 (hereinafter called the Regulations ). After remand the Labour Court has passed an order on 14th September 1977 passed an order on 14th September 1977 upholding the claim of the Second Respondent for being paid half wages for the period 2-10-1969 to 411-1969. In these circumstances, the employer has filed this Writ Petition to quash the order of the Labour Court dated 14-9-1977.

(2.) OFFICER, Labour. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is as follows : (1) Since the employee has received sickness benefit under the Act he is not entitled to receive wages for the period during which he was on sick level. If he is allowed to receive wages for the period during which he was on sick leave, he has the double advantage of receiving the salary as well as the sickness benefits under the Act. (2) Even if it is held that he is eligible to get wages for the period during which he was on sick leave, the employer is entitled to deduct the sickness benefits received by the employee under the Act from the wages payable to the employee, for the corresponding period. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second Respondent contended that Standing Order No. 11 (xii) provides for payment of half wages for the period during which an employee was on sick leave and so long as the standing order has not been amended, the employee is entitled to get wages for the period during which he was on sick leave. The sickness benefits that he has received under the Act have nothing to do with his right to receive wages as per the conditions of service for the period during which he was on sick leave.

(3.) SECTION 46 (1) (a) of the act provides for periodical payments to any insured person in case of his sickness if certified by a duly appointed medical practitioner. This periodical payment is called the sickness benefit. Sections 47 and 49 of the Act deal with the eligibility of employees for sickness benefit. Section 50 of the Act deals with maternity benefit. Section 51 deals with the disablement benefit. Section 56 provides for medical benefits to the insured person or under certain circumstances to the members of his family. Section 58 provides for reasonable medical, surgical and obstetric treatment being extended to the employees and members of their families. The Act does not provide for any leave being granted to an insured person during the period of the sickness. It is not possible to come to a conclusion on a reading of the various provisions of the Act that the various benefits that are conferred on an insured person and the members of his family were conferred in substitution of the insured person's right to get leave salary for the period during which he was on sick leave. In Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Their Workmen. 1963 (1) L. L. J. 108, It has been held as follows :