# BA~A NT KUMAR SARKAR AND OTHERS v. EAGLE ROLLING MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1964] 6 S.C.R. 913
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961-03-01
- **Bench:** P. B.) Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, J. c. SHAH, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, S. M. Sikri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ba-a-nt-kumar-sarkar-and-others-v-eagle-rolling-mills-ltd-and-others-3230
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Employees State Insurance Act (XXXlV of 1948)J'. 1(3) Constitutional
validity--Central Government empowered to apply
provision1
of
Act by notification-If excessive delegation.
The appellants
as workmen of respondent No. 1 in all the three
respondent concerns were getting free medical benefits of a very high
order in a well furnished hospital maintained by respondent
No.
1.
Respondent No. 3. the
Union of India issued a notification under s.
1 (3) of the Employees State
Insurance Act appointing
28th August.
1960 as the date on which some provisions of the Act should come into
force. in certain areas of the State of Bihar and the area in which the
i\ppellants were working came within the scope of the Act. In pursuance
of the said notification, the Chief Executive Officer of Respondent No. 1
issued notices to the appellants that the me'dical benefits upto the extent
admissible under the Act will cease to be provided to insurable persons
from the appointed day and the medical benefits would thereafter be
governed by the relevant provisions of the Act. The appellants in a
writ petition to the High Court challenged the validity of s. 1 (3) of
the Act and legality of the·notifications issued under it, inter alia, on the
ground that it contraveneli Art. 14 of the Constitution and suffers from
the vice of excessive delegation. The High Court rejected the plea and
dismissed the writ petitions.
On appeal by special leave the appellants
contende.d that s. 1 (3) of the Act suffers from excessive delegation and
is, therefore. invalid.
Held: (i) S. 1(3) of the Act is not an illustration of delegated
legislation at all, it can be described as coiiditional legislation. It purports to authorise the Central Government to establish a corporation
for the a'dministration of the scheme of Employees' State Insurance by
a notification. As to when the notification should be issued and in
respect of what factories it should be issued, has been left to the dis ..
cretion of the Central Government and that is precisely what is usually
done by conditional legislation.
Queen v. Burah, 5. I.A. 178, relied on.
(ii) Assuming there is an element of delegation, the plea is equally
unsustainable. because there is enough guidance given by the relevant
provisions of the Act and the very scheme of the Act itself. ·In the
very nature of things, it would have been impossible for the legislature
to decide in what areas and in respect of which factories the Employees'
State Insurance Corporation shoufd be established. It is obvious that
a scheme of this kind, though very beneficent, could not be introduced
34 -159 S.C.-58
1961
1961
,,_nt Kumar
v.
..,,, Rollin1
lllilb
Qa/endragadkar
c. J.
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
in the whole of the country all at once. Such . beneficial
measures
which need careful experimentation have sometimes to be adopted by
stages and in different phases, and so, inevitably, the question of extend~
ing the statutory benefits contemplated by the Act has to be left to
the discretion of the appropriate Government. That cannot amount to
excessive delegation.
Edward Mills Co. Ltd. Beawar v. The State of Ajmer, [1955] I
S.C.R. 735, Mis Bhikusa Yamasa Kshatriya v. Sangamner Ako/a Taluka
Bidi Kamgar Union, [1963]
Supp, I S.C.R. 524 and Bhikusa Yamasa
Kahtriva v. Union of India, [1964] I S.C.R. 860 followed:

## Text

I
o ::>.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
913
BA~A NT KUMAR SARKAR AND OTHERS
v.
EAGLE ROLLING MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS
(P. B.) GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, J. c.
SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND S. M. SIKRI JJ.)
Employees State Insurance Act (XXXlV of 1948)J'. 1(3) Constitutional
validity--Central Government empowered to apply
provision1
of
Act by notification-If excessive delegation.
The appellants
as workmen of respondent No. 1 in all the three
respondent concerns were getting free medical benefits of a very high
order in a well furnished hospital maintained by respondent
No.
1.
Respondent No. 3. the
Union of India issued a notification under s.
1 (3) of the Employees State
Insurance Act appointing
28th August.
1960 as the date on which some provisions of the Act should come into
force. in certain areas of the State of Bihar and the area in which the
i\ppellants were working came within the scope of the Act. In pursuance
of the said notification, the Chief Executive Officer of Respondent No. 1
issued notices to the appellants that the me'dical benefits upto the extent
admissible under the Act will cease to be provided to insurable persons
from the appointed day and the medical benefits would thereafter be
governed by the relevant provisions of the Act. The appellants in a
writ petition to the High Court challenged the validity of s. 1 (3) of
the Act and legality of the·notifications issued under it, inter alia, on the
ground that it contraveneli Art. 14 of the Constitution and suffers from
the vice of excessive delegation. The High Court rejected the plea and
dismissed the writ petitions.
On appeal by special leave the appellants
contende.d that s. 1 (3) of the Act suffers from excessive delegation and
is, therefore. invalid.
Held: (i) S. 1(3) of the Act is not an illustration of delegated
legislation at all, it can be described as coiiditional legislation. It purports to authorise the Central Government to establish a corporation
for the a'dministration of the scheme of Employees' State Insurance by
a notification. As to when the notification should be issued and in
respect of what factories it should be issued, has been left to the dis ..
cretion of the Central Government and that is precisely what is usually
done by conditional legislation.
Queen v. Burah, 5. I.A. 178, relied on.
(ii) Assuming there is an element of delegation, the plea is equally
unsustainable. because there is enough guidance given by the relevant
provisions of the Act and the very scheme of the Act itself. ·In the
very nature of things, it would have been impossible for the legislature
to decide in what areas and in respect of which factories the Employees'
State Insurance Corporation shoufd be established. It is obvious that
a scheme of this kind, though very beneficent, could not be introduced
34 -159 S.C.-58
1961
1961
,,_nt Kumar
v.
..,,, Rollin1
lllilb
Qa/endragadkar
c. J.
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
in the whole of the country all at once. Such . beneficial
measures
which need careful experimentation have sometimes to be adopted by
stages and in different phases, and so, inevitably, the question of extend~
ing the statutory benefits contemplated by the Act has to be left to
the discretion of the appropriate Government. That cannot amount to
excessive delegation.
Edward Mills Co. Ltd. Beawar v. The State of Ajmer, [1955] I
S.C.R. 735, Mis Bhikusa Yamasa Kshatriya v. Sangamner Ako/a Taluka
Bidi Kamgar Union, [1963]
Supp, I S.C.R. 524 and Bhikusa Yamasa
Kahtriva v. Union of India, [1964] I S.C.R. 860 followed:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.
721-723 uf 1962.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order
dated March 1, 1961, of the Patna High Court in Misc.
Judicial Cases Nos. 1167, 1122 and 1235 of 1960.
N,. 'c. Chatteriee, Ra; Behari Singh and Udai Pratap
Singh,' for the appellants (in all the appeals).
'
I( P. Singh, N. P. Singh and I. N. Shroff, for the
respondent No. 1 (in al! the appeals).
C.
K.
Daphtary, Attorney-General, N. S. Bindra,
V. D. Maha;an and B. R. G. K. Achor, for respondents
Nos. 2 and 3.
February 26, 1964.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
GAJENDRAGADKAR. C.J.-The short question which
arises in these appeals by special leave is whether section
1 ( 3) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (No. 34
of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act) is invalid. By their
writ petitions filed before the Patna High Court, the
.ippellants who are the workmen of the three respondent
.,;oncerns, the Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd., the Kumardhubi
Engineering Works Ltd., and Kumardhubi Fire Clay ane1
Silica Works Ltd., respectively, alleged that the impugned
8ection has contravened Art. 14 of the Constitution, and
suffers from the vice of excessive delegation, and as such
ts invalid.
These employers were impleaded as respondent
No. 1. respectively in the three writ petitions.
The High
Court has rejected the plea and the writ petitions filed by
\
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
915
the appellants have accordingly been dismissed. It is against
this decision of the High Court that the appellants have
come to this Court and have impleaded the three employers
respectively.
The three appeals proceed on similar facts
and raise an identical question of law and have, therefore,
been heard together.
It appears that respondents No. 1 in all the three appeals
are under the management of Mfs. Bird & Co. Ltd., through
a General M.mager, and the appellants are their workmen.
As such workmen, the appellants were getting satisfactory
medical benefits of a very high order free of any charge.
Respondent No. 1 in each appeal maintained a wellfurnished hospital with provision for 60 permanent beds
for the workmen, their families and their dependents. The
main grievance made by the appellants is that as a result
of s. 1 ( 3) of the Act, the appellants have now to be content
with medical benefits of a less satisfactory nature. That is
why they challenged the validity of the impugned section
and contest the propriety and legality of the notification
issued under it.
To these writ petitions as well as to the
appeals, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation and
the Union of India have been impleaded as respondents 2
and 3 respectively.
On the 22nd August, 1960, respondent No. 3 issued a
notification under section 1, sub-section ( 3) appointing the
28th August, 1960 as the date on which some provisions
of the Act should come into force in certain areas of the
State of Bihar. By this notification, the area in which the
appellants are working came within the scope of tne Act.
In pursuance of the said notification, the Chief Executive
Officer of respondent No. 1 informed the appellants on the
25th August, 1960 that the medical benefits including
indoor and outdoor treatment upto the extent admissible
under the Act will cease to be provided to insurable perso11~
from the appointed day. A notice in that behalf was duly
issued and published by the said Officer.
Similar notices
were issued indicating to the appellants that medical benefit•
.r.•
would thereafter be governed by the relevant provisions of
the Act and not by the arrangements which had been made
196'
B,unm Kra111r
Y.
&tit J!olU..
M/116
Gajendra[llUIJ;ar
c. J.
916
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
1961
B,..ant Kumar
earlier by respondent No. 1 in that behalf.
That', in brief,
is $.e genesis of the present writ petitions and the nature
of the dispute between the parties.
T •
..,,, Rolling
Milli
Go/endragadkar
c. /.
The first point which Mr. Chatterjee has raised before
us is that s. 1 (3) of the Act suffers from excessive delegation and is, therefore, invalid.
In order to consider the
validity of this argument, it is necessary to read section l,
sub-section (3) :-
"The Act shall come into force on such date or dates
as the Central Government may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, appoint, and different
dates may be appointed for different provisions
of this Act and for different States or for
different parts thereof'.
The · argument is that the power given to the Central
Government to apply the provisions of the Act by notification, confers on the Central Government absolute discretion,
the exercise of which is not guided by any legislative
provision and is, therefore, invalid.
The Act does not
prescribe any considerations in the light of which the
Central Government can proceed to act under s. 1( 3) and
such uncanalised power conferred on the Central Government must be treated as invalid.
We are not impressed by
this argument.
Section 1 ( 3) is really not an illustration
of delegated legislation 11t all; it is what can be ,properly
described as conditional legislation. The Act has prescribed
a self-contained code in regard to the insurance of the
employees covered by it; several remedial measures which
the Legislature thought it necessary to enforce in regard to
such workmen have beep specifically dealt with and appropriate provisions have been made to. carry out the policy
of the Act as laid down in its relevant sections. Section 3 ( 1)
of the Act purports to authoris.: the Centr11! Government
to establish a Corporation for the administration of the
scheme of Employees' State Insurance by a notification. In
other words, when the notification should be issued and in
respect of what factories it should be issued, has been left
to the discretion of the Central Government and that is
•a
precisely what is usually done by conditional legislation.
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
917
What Lord Selbome said about the powers conferred on
the Lieutenant-Governor by virtue of the relevant provisions
<if Act 22 of 1869 in Queen v. Burah('), can be said with
equal justification about the powers conferred on the
Central Government by s. 1 ( 3).
Said Lord· Selborne in
that case :
"Their Lordships think that it is a fallacy to speak
of the powers thus conferred upon the Lieutenant-Governor (large as they 1H1doubtedly are)
as if, when they were exercised, the efficacy of
the acts done under them would be due to any
other legislative authority than that of the
Governor-General in Council. Their whole
operation is directly and immediately under
and by virtue of this Act (XXII of 1869)
itself. The proper Legislature has exercised its
judgment as to place, person, laws, powers;
and the result of that judgment has been to
legislate conditionally as to all these things.
The conditions having been fulfilled, the legislation is now absolute''.
That 1s the first answer to the plea raised by Mr. Chatterjee.
Assuming that there is an element of deleg11tion, the
plea is equally unsustainable, because there is enough
guidance given by the relevant provisions of the Act and
the very scheme of the Act it11elf. The preamble to the Act
shows that it was passed because the legislature thought it
expedient to provide for certain benefits to employee! in
case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and to
make provision for certain other matters in relation thereto.
So, the policy of the Act is unambiguous and clear.
The
material
definillons
of
"ben$fil
Qeriod'',
"P-mployee",
"factory", "insured person'', "sickness'', "wages" and other
terms contained in s. 2 give a clear idea as to the nature
of the factories to which the Act is intended to be applied,
the class of ~ersons for whose benefit it has been passed
and the nature of the benefit which is intended to be conferred on them.
Chapter II of the Act deals with the
(I) 5 J.A. 178 at p. 195.
19M
/Ja!a ... t Kumar
"·
Eagle Rollln,
Milli
Gajendragadkar
C. I.
1961
a-Ill Kumar
...
"'1fl• Ro/lint
Milli
· 0./endragadkar
c. J.
918
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1g64]
Corporation, Standing Committee and Medical Benefit
Council and their constitution; Chapter Ill deals with the
problem of finance and audit; Chapter IV makes provisions
for contribution both by the employees and the employer,
and Chapter V prescribes the benefits which have to be
conferred on the workmen; it also gives ·general provisions
in respect of those benefits. Chapter V-A deals with transitory provisions; Chapter VI deals with the adjudication of
disputes and claims; and Chapter VII prescribes penalties.
Chapter VIII which is the last Chapter, deals with miscellaneous matters. In the very nature of things, it would
have been impossible for the legislature to decide in what
areas and in respect of which factories the Empioyees' State
Insurance Corporation should be estal.Jiished. It is obvious
that a scheme of this kind, though very beneficient, could
not be introduced in the whole of the country all at once.
Such beneficial measures which need careful experimentation have sometimes to be adopted by stages and in different
phases, and so, inevitably, the question of extending the
statutory benefits contemplated by the Act has to be left
to the discretion of the appropriate Government. "Appropriate Government" under s. 2 (1) means in respect of
establishments under the control of the Central Government
or a railway administration or a major iport or a mine or
oilfield, the Central Government, and in ali other cases,
the State Government. Thus, it is clear that when extending
the Act to different establishments, the relevant Government
is given the power to constitute a Corporation for the
administration of the scheme of Employees' State Insurance.
The course adopted by modern legislatures in dealing with
Wtllfare schemes has uniformly conformed to the same
pauem. The legislature evolves a scheme of socio-economic
welfar.,, makes elaborate provisions in respect of it and
leaves it to the Government concerned to decide when,
how and in what manner the scheme should be introduced.
That, in our opinion, cannot amount to excessive delegation.
The question of excessive delegation has been frequently
considered by this Court and the approach to be adopted
in dealing with it is no longer in doubt.
In the Edward
1
Mills Co. Ltd., Beawar and Others v. The State of Aimer
,·
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
919
and Another('), this Court repelled the challenge to tnc
validity of s. 27 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (No. XI
of 1948), whereby power had been given to the appropriate
Government to add to either part of the schedule any
employment in respect of which it was of opinion that
minimum wages shall be fixed by giving notification -in a
particular manner, and it was provided that on the issue of
the notification, the scheme shall, in its application to the
State, be deemed to be amended accordingly.
In dealing
with this problem, this Court observed that there was an
element of delegation implied in the provisions of s. 27,
for the legislature, in a sense, authorised another body
specified by it to do something which it might do itself;
but it was held that such delegation was not unwarranted
and unconstitutional and it did not exceed the limits of
permissible delegation.
To the same effect are the recent
decisions of this Court in M / s. Bhikusa Y amasa Kshatriya
and Another v. Sangamner Ako/a Taluka Bidi Kamgar
Union and Others( 2 ), and Bhikusa Yamasa K~hatriya (P)
Ltd. v. Union of India and Another('). Therefore, we must
hold that the impugned section 1 (3) of the Act is not shown
to be constitutionally invalid.
Before we part with these appeals, there is one more
point to which reference must be made. We have already
mentioned that after the notification was issued under
s. 1 ( 3) by respondent No. 3 appointing August 28, 1960
as the date on which some of the provisions of the Act
should come into force in certain areas of the State of Bihar,
the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No. 1 issued
notices giving effect to the State Government's notification
and intimating to the appellants that by reai.on of the said
notification, the medical benefits whicli were be 'ing given to
them in the past would be received by tl.•:n
under the
relevant provisions of the Act.
It wa.1 11rl :id by the
appellants before the High Court that these notices were
invalid and should be struck down.
The ar1 ument which
was urged in support of this contention wa~ that espondent
(1)[19551 I S.C.R. 735.
(2) [19631 Supp. I S.C.R. ~24.
(3) [1964] I S.C.R. 860.
1964
Ba.sant Kimi#
v.
Eagl• Roi/inf
Mi/Lr
Gajtndrag..0.-
C. /,
19M
Ba1ant Kumar
v.
llark RoWng
Mills
Gaiendragadkar
c. J.
1964
February 26
920
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
No. 1 in all the three appeals were not entitled to curtail
the benefits provided to the appellants by them and that the
said benefits were not similar either qualitatively or quantitatively to the benefits under the Scheme which had been
brought into force under the Act.
The High Court has
held that the question as to whether the notices and circulars
issued by respondent No. 1 were invalid, could not be
considered under Art. 226 of the Constitution; that is a
matter which can be appropriately raised in the form of
a dispute by the appellants under s. 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
It is true that the powers conferred on the
High Courts under Art. 226 are very wide, but it is not
suggested by Mr. Chatterjee that even these powers can take
in within their sweep industrial disputes of the kind which
this contention seeks to raise. Therefore, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the contention, we would
contirm the finding of the High Court that the proper remedy
which is available to the appellants to ventilate their
grievances in respect of the said notices and circulars is to
take recourse to s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, or
seek relief, if possible, under sections 74 and 75 of the Act.
The result is, the appeals fail and are dismiBsed. There
would be no order as to costs.
A ppea/s dismissed.
SHIV PRASAD CHUNILAL JAIN
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND
J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.)
Criminal Trial-Whether the person must be physically present at the
1.1ctual commission of the crime-Acts done by several person.t in
1u11,'1erance of common intention-Essence of-lndia11 Penal Code,
!KllO ( 4S of 1860), •· 34.
In a trial by jury the appellants were jointly charged along witlt
accused No. 1 with an offence punishable under ss. 471 and 467 read
with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The first charge was that in