Allahabad High Court High Court

Indian Telephone Industry … vs Union Of India And Others on 22 July, 2010

Allahabad High Court
Indian Telephone Industry … vs Union Of India And Others on 22 July, 2010
Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42273 of 2010

Petitioner :- Indian Telephone Industry Mazdoor Sangh Naini, Alld
Respondent :- Union Of India And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- R. B. Singh
Respondent Counsel :- A. S. G. I.,Gopal Mishra

Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal Mishra, Advocate on
behalf of the ITI, Naini and Sri Bal Krishna Dubey, Advocate on behalf of the
Union of India.

Under the letter of the Director (P&D), Head Quarter Office, Delhi, the
Deputy Director, ITI Naini, Allahabad has been informed that under
notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and
Employment dated 20th April, 2010, Rule 50 of the Employees State
Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 has been amended with effect from 01st May,
2010 and the outer salary limit fixed for the employees to be covered under
the ESI (Central) Scheme has been enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- per month to
15,000/- per month. Accordingly, deduction of the salary from the employees
of the ITI Naini, Allahabad towards contribution may be done.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that Sixth Pay Commission has not been
enforced qua the employees of ITI Naini, Allahabad and therefore the
direction to deduct ESI contribution from the salary of the employees, who
are drying salary up to Rs. 15,000/- per month is illegal.
The challenge made to the Rule 50, as amended vide Notification dated 20 th
April, 2010 is totally misplace. ESI Scheme has been framed for the benefit of
the employees . It is a beneficial peace of legislation and therefore, if the
employees drawing salary up to Rs. 15,000/- per month have been included
thereunder, this Court will not interfere with such amendment in the Rules.
Even otherwise non-implementation of Sixth Pay Commission cannot be the
basis for objecting to the amendment made in the Rules.
Writ petition is dismissed.

However, in the facts of the case liberty is granted to the petitioner to
represent their grievance qua implementation of Sixth Pay Commission before
respondent no. 3, who shall take appropriate decision at the earliest possible.
Order Date :- 22.7.2010
Pkb/