Skip to content


Esi Corporation Vs. C. Saseendran - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Labour and Industrial

Court

Supreme Court of India

Decided On

Case Number

Civil Appeal Nos. 800 of 1998, 7087 of 1999 and 4123 of 2000 Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22851 of 199

Judge

Reported in

(2001)9SCC349

Appellant

Esi Corporation

Respondent

C. Saseendran

Excerpt:


- [ s. rajendra babu and; shivaraj v. patil, jj.] -- labour law — employees' state insurance act, 1948 — sections. 78, 19 and 82(2) — direction issued by ei court to esi corporation for finding suitable employment for disabled workmen — propriety of — having regard to the scheme framed in terms of s. 19, which also provided for the rehabilitation of the disabled workmen, direction issued by ei court ordered to be given effect to in terms of the said scheme -- the matter was carried in appeal in each of the cases to the high court. the high court dismissed the appeals holding that the order made by the ei court is in accord with the spirit of section 19 of the esi act. it is now complained before us that the ei court has no powers to give a direction to the esi corporation to find a suitable employment for the respondent under section 19 of the esi act. this court while granting leave confined the matter to this aspect only......insured persons and for the rehabilitation and re-employment of insured persons who have been disabled or injured and may incur in respect of such measures expenditure from the funds of the corporation within such limits as may be prescribed by the central government.4. whatever may have been the situation at that time when the order was made, it has now been brought to our notice that a scheme is in fact framed in terms of section 19 of the act which provides not only for the payment of compensation but also for rehabilitation. if that is so, the direction issued by the ei court under section 19 of the act will have to be given effect to in terms of the scheme. viewed from that angle, no interference is called for with the order made by the ei court as affirmed by the high court except to the extent to notice that the direction issued will have to be given effect to in terms of the scheme. the appeals are dismissed accordingly.

Judgment:


S. Rajendra Babu and; Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.

1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 22851 of 1997.

2. In these appeals, the respondent workmen claimed certain benefits arising out of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 as each of them sustained certain injuries in the course of employment. The EI Court after assessing the extent of disability, benefits arising thereto was also computed with a direction to the effect that the appellant is bound to find a suitable employment for such an employee who became disabled on account of employment injury as provided in Section 19 of the ESI Act. The matter was carried in appeal in each of the cases to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeals holding that the order made by the EI Court is in accord with the spirit of Section 19 of the ESI Act.

3. It is now complained before us that the EI Court has no powers to give a direction to the ESI Corporation to find a suitable employment for the respondent under Section 19 of the ESI Act. This Court while granting leave confined the matter to this aspect only. Section 19 provides that the Corporation may in addition to the scheme of benefits specified in the Act, promote measures for the improvement of the health and welfare of insured persons and for the rehabilitation and re-employment of insured persons who have been disabled or injured and may incur in respect of such measures expenditure from the funds of the Corporation within such limits as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

4. Whatever may have been the situation at that time when the order was made, it has now been brought to our notice that a scheme is in fact framed in terms of Section 19 of the Act which provides not only for the payment of compensation but also for rehabilitation. If that is so, the direction issued by the EI Court under Section 19 of the Act will have to be given effect to in terms of the scheme. Viewed from that angle, no interference is called for with the order made by the EI Court as affirmed by the High Court except to the extent to notice that the direction issued will have to be given effect to in terms of the scheme. The appeals are dismissed accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //