DHARAM PAUL AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 6111, 5239, 5552, 6159 and 650 of 1986. In these petitions, the petitioners are employees/workers of the Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation (hereinafter referred to as 'the MILKFED'). The Punjab Government vide Notification issued under Section 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ESI Act') made applicable the provisions of the said Act to the Government factories including the MILKFED. The petitioners, who were receiving wages between Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,600/- per month came within the purview of, the said Act w.e.f. January 27, 1985. Undisputedly, prior to January 27,1985 the petitioners were receiving an amount of Rs. 50/- per month towards medical reimbursement under Clause (3) of the Services Rules, which is reproduced as under:

(2.) During the course of hearing, counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners do not want to press the prayer of quashing the order dated August 13, 1986 (Annexure P3). JUDGMENT However, he submitted that in view of Section 72 of-the ESI Act the respondent-MILKFED cannot discontinue the medical reimbursement of Rs. 50/- which was available to the petitioners under the conditions of their service. He submitted that the benefits provided by the employer prior to the enforcement of ESI Act can be discontinued or reduced only if so provided under Section 97(1) of the ESI Act. According to the learned counsel, the benefits provided under the ESI Act are supplementary to the medical benefits received by the petitioners under the service conditions and the same cannot be discontinued on coming into force of the ESI Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bareilly Holdings Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1979 SC 1211 : (1979) 3 SCC 257 : 1979- I-LLJ-3 52, Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. Calcutta Electric Supply Workers Union and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 548 : 1995-I-LLJ-874, Workmen of Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. K. Choudhri and Others, ; 1966-I-LLJ-181(Pat) and Seshasayee Paper Mill and Others v. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. 2000-III-LLJ (Suppl)-617(Mad).

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel or the respondents submitted that Clause (3) of the Service Rules clearly provides that medical reimbursement of Rs. 50/- would only be paid to the employees/workmen who were not covered by the ESI Act/ESI Scheme. Therefore, those employees, who are covered under the ESI Scheme, would not be entitled to the said allowance which in itself was a condition of their service. Learned counsel further argued that Section 72 of the Act does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as the benefits of medical reimbursement earlier provided under Clause (3) of the Service Rules are not similar to the benefits conferred by the ESI Act. He further submitted that only those benefits could not be discontinued or reduced which were payable to the employees/workmen under the condition of their service and are similar to the benefits conferred by the ESI Act. He submitted that since the Service Rules itself provide that the medical reimbursement of Rs. 50/- per month will be paid to only those workmen who were not covered by die Act/ESI Scheme, therefore, the petitioners, who were getting the said benefit under the said Rule will not be entitled for the said benefit on their becoming members of the ESI Scheme. He further submitted that in view of Section 61 of the ESI Act, the petitioners are also not entitled to the medical reimbursement of Rs. 50/- per month as the said Section provides that when a person is entitled to any of the benefits provided by this Act, he shall not be entitled to receive any similar benefit admissible under the provisions of any other enactment. 4.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail. 5. The only question to be determined in these petitions is whether the medical benefits i.e. medical reimbursement of an amount of Rs. 50/- per month, already extended by the MILKFED under Clause (3) of the Service Rules and enjoyed by the petitioners, can be discontinued on application of the ESI Act, ESI Scheme to the petitioners? Section 72 of the ESI Act is reproduced as under: