Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 4766 of 2022 --------- M/s JEMCO Ltd. (A Division of I.S.W.P.), Jamshedpur, A Company incorporated under the Companies Act having its works at Indra Nagar, represented through its Company Secretary, Shri Rabi Narayan Kar, Aged about 47 years, Son of Sri Rajani Kanta Kar, Resident of G-4/4, ISWP Colony, Indranagar, P.O. & P.S. Telco, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum ..… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Labour Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi 3. Employees State Insurance Corporation represented through its Regional Director, having its Office at Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District-Ranchi ….. Respondents With W.P.(L) No. 4767 of 2022 --------- M/s JEMCO Ltd. (A Division of I.S.W.P.), Jamshedpur, A Company incorporated under the Companies Act having its works at Indra Nagar, represented through its Company Secretary, Shri Rabi Narayan Kar ..… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Labour Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi 3.Employees State Insurance Corporation represented through its Regional Director, having office at Namkum, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District-Ranchi ….. Respondents With W.P.(L) No. 4769 of 2022 --------- M/s Indian Steel & Wire Products Limited, A Company incorporated under the Companies Act having its Works at Indra Nagar, P.O. Indra Nagar, P.S. Telco, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, represented Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 2 through its Company Secretary, Shri Rabi Narayan Kar, Aged about 47 years, son of Sri Rajani Kanta Kar, Resident of G-4/4, ISWP Colony, Indranagar, P.O. & P.S., Telco, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum ..… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Labour Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand Office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi 3. Employees State Insurance Corporation represented through its Regional Director, having office at Namkum, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District-Ranchi ….. Respondent With W.P.(L) No. 4770 of 2022 --------- M/s Indian Steel & Wire Products Limited, A Company incorporated under the Companies Act having its Works at Indra Nagar, P.O. Indra Nagar, P.S. Telco, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, represented through its Company Secretary, Shri Rabi Narayan Kar, Aged about 47 years, Son of Sri Rajani Kanta Kar, Resident of G-4/4, ISWP Colony, Indranagar, P.O. & P.S. Telco, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum ..… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Labour Employment and Training, Government Jharkhand, Office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi 3. Employees State Insurance Corporation represented through its Regional Director, having office at Namkum, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District-Ranchi ….. Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioners : Mr.Nipun Bakshi, Advocate Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate [In all the cases] For the State : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 3 Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, A.C. to G.P.-V (In W.P.(L) No. 4767 of 2022) For the Resp.No.3 : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate [In all the cases] --------- C.A.V. JUDGMENT Pronounced on 24.07.2025 1. All these Four Writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(L) No. 4766 of 2022, W.P.(L) No. 4767 of 2022, W.P.(L) No. 4769 of 2022 and W.P.(L) No. 4770 of 2022, are being taken together and being disposed of together as issues relating to disposal of these cases are common and same in all the four writ petitions, by which the applications submitted by the Petitioners under Section 87 of the E.S.I. Act, 1948 for exemption of the Petitioners from the operation of the Act for the period from 01.4.2020 to 31.03.2021, from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022, 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 and 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 have been rejected by the Respondent No.2. 2. W.P.(L) No. 4766 of 2022 and W.P.(L) No.4767 of 2022 have been filed by the M/s JEMCO Ltd. (A Division of I.S.W.P.), Jamshedpur and W.P.(L) No. 4769 of 2022 and W.P.(L) No. 4770 of 2022 have been filed by M/s Indian Steel & Wire Products Limited. 3. It reveals that the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary) of this Court, vide Order dated 20.06.2024 has observed that the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(L) No. 4767 of 2022 by the Respondent No.3 will be considered for the purpose of disposal of W.P.(L) No. 4766 of 2022 as well. 4. W.P.(L) No. 4766 of 2022 has been filed for the following reliefs:- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 4 (i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, contained in Memo No. 02/Shra. Nil.Pra. (Vimukti)-06- 15/2021 Shra.Ni.-804 dated 26.05.2022 (Ann.- 7) whereby and whereunder the application submitted by Petitioner under Section 87 of the Act, 1948 for exemption of Petitioner from the operation of the Act for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 has been rejected and (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon Respondent No.2 to take a fresh decision in the matter by properly appreciating the materials on record as also on the basis that earlier the application submitted by the Petitioner for exemption from the operation of the Act for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 and 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 was allowed and no material change has taken place for not granting exemption to Petitioner for subsequent period under reference; And, (iii) For such other relief/reliefs to which the Petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. W.P.(L) No. 4767 of 2022 has been filed for the following reliefs:- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 5 (i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Order dated 05.05.2022 passed by the Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi contained in Memo No. 02/Shra.Ni.Pra. (Vimukti)-06-16/2021 Shra.Ni.-709 dated 06.05.2022 (Ann.-7) whereby and whereunder the application submitted by Petitioner under Section 87 of the Act, 1948 for exemption of Petitioner from the operation of the Act for the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 has been rejected; And, (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon Respondent No.2 to take a fresh decision in the matter by properly appreciating the materials on record as also on the basis that earlier the application submitted by the Petitioner for exemption from the operation of the Act for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 and 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 was allowed and no material change has taken place for not granting exemption to Petitioner for subsequent period under reference; And, (iii) For such other relief/reliefs to which the Petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 6 6. W.P.(L) No. 4769 of 2022 has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi contained in Memo No. 03/Shra.Ni.Pra. (Vimukti)-06-24/2022 Shra.Ni.-803 dated 26.05.2022 (Ann.-7) whereby and whereunder the application submitted by Petitioner under Section 87 of the Act, 1948 for exemption of Petitioner from the operation of the Act for the period from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 has been rejected; And, (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon Respondent No.2 to take a fresh decision in the matter by properly appreciating the materials on record as also on the basis that earlier the application submitted by the Petitioner for exemption from the operation of the Act for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 and 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 was allowed and no material change has taken place for not granting exemption to Petitioner for subsequent period under reference; And, (iii) For such other relief/reliefs to which the Petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. W.P.(L) No. 4770 of 2022 has been filed for the following reliefs:- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 7 (i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Order dated 05.05.2022 passed by the Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi contained in Memo No. 03/Shra.Ni.Pra. (Vimukti)-06-14/2021 Shra.Ni.-706 dated 06.05.2022 (Ann.-7) whereby and whereunder the application submitted by Petitioner under Section 87 of the Act, 1948 for exemption of Petitioner from the operation of the Act for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 has been rejected; And, (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon Respondent No.2 to take a fresh decision in the matter by properly appreciating the materials on record as also on the basis that earlier the application submitted by the Petitioner for exemption from the operation of the Act for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 and 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 was allowed and no material change has taken place for not granting exemption to Petitioner for subsequent period under reference; And, (iii) For such other relief/reliefs to which the Petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Heard Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the Petitioners, in all the four cases, assisted by Mr. Shubham Sinha, learned counsel, Mr. Manish Mishra, learned G.P.-V and Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 8 for the Respondent No.3-E.S.I.C in all the above four writ petitions. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners- company submitted that the impugned Order dated 26.05.2022 as contained in Annexure-7 of W.P.(L) No. 4766 of 2022, impugned order dated 05.05.2022 contained as Annexure-7 in W.P.(L) No. 4767 of 2022, impugned order dated 26.05.2022 as contained in Annexure-7 in W.P.(L) No.4769 of 2022 and Order dated 05.05.2022 as contained in Annexure-7 of W.P.(L) No. 4770 of 2022 are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the Respondents, particularly Respondent No.2, i.e. the Secretary, Labour Employment and Training, Govt. of Jharkhand committed grave illegality by rejecting the application of the Petitioners-Company under Section 87 of E.S.I. Act, 1948 for exemption to the Petitioners-Company for certain period which are as follows:- Sr.No. Case No. Party Name Period seeking exemption Date of rejection 1. W.P.(L) No. 4766 of 2022 M/ s Jemco Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 26.05.2022 2. W.P.(L) No. 4767 of 2022 M/ s Jemco Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 05.05.2022 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 9 3. W.P.(L) No. 4769 of 2022 M /s Indian Steel & wire Products Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 26.05.2022 4. W.P.(L) No. 4770 of 2022 M /s Indian Steel & wire Products Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 05.05.2022 Learned counsel for the Petitioners- Company appearing in W.P.(L) No. 4766 of 2022 and W.P.(L) No. 4767 of 2022 submits that the Petitioners- Company are existing Companies within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. It is submitted that the Petitioner M/S Jamshedpur Engineering and Machine Manufacturing Company Ltd. (JEMCO) was established as a company in 1939. It became a division of M/s ISWP Ltd. in 1992. Subsequently, the Petitioner has become a 100% owned subsidiary of M/s Tata Steel Ltd. w.e.f. from December 2003, under rehabilitation scheme of B.I.F.R. It is submitted that it was a well-planned own residential colony having different sizes of various independent houses, bungalows, flats, guest house, schools, well equipped and well furnished own hospital with experienced doctors and paramedical staff round the clock for the facilities and benefits of its employees. It is submitted that Company was obeying and continues to follow all rules and Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 10 regulations of Factories Act, Workmen's compensation Act and of the labor law. It is submitted that the Petitioners- company under their previous and erstwhile management headed by Ravi Inder Singh and Indra Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd. became a sick industrial company with the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as "SICA") and was declared as such by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as "BIFR") on September 24, 2001. Therefore, the Industrial Development Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as IDBI) was appointed as the Operating Agency by BIFR and March 31, 2002 was fixed for ascertaining the liability of the erstwhile management. It is submitted that pursuant to the direction of the BIFR the operating agency issued advertisement for the change of management and some dues were to be paid to M/s Tata Steel Ltd on account of supply of electricity, raw materials etc. and Tata Steel also submitted a proposal for rehabilitation. In the meantime, on 22.10.2003 the BIFR sanctioned the scheme for rehabilitation based on the proposal of the Tata Steel. Thus, vide order dated 22.11.2003, the BIFR directed that the scheme sanctioned on 22.10.2003 should be released for implementation by Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 11 all concerned. The Petitioners-Company has come out of BIFR. In view of the aforesaid steps, other steps were taken for strengthening the organization and the Management commenced production and clearance and the persons employed in the factories which were lying closed for six years joined work and began to be paid. It is submitted that the medical facilities being offered and provided by the Petitioners-Company over the years has been enhanced and has been continuously increasing both qualitatively and quantitatively. It is submitted that the Petitioners- Company, apart from having their own full-fledged 32 bed hospital, is now affiliated to Tata Main Hospital for treatment of their employees and eligible members of the employees, and the facilities enjoyed by its employees and their family members/ dependents are far in excess and better than those provided by the ESIC. The Petitioners have been providing sickness benefits by availing sick leave with full pay /half pay, disablement benefit in case of temporary disablement, compensation under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923 and maternity benefit as per Maternity Benefit Act. Apart from this, various other facilities are being provided to the Petitioners-company and its employees and it has been detailed in its application which is far in excess to that provided by the ESIC. It is submitted that since the Petitioners- Company provided better facilities to its employees, it filed Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 12 an application for exemption before the Government which was pleased to grant exemption to the Petitioners-company for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 and 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. Photocopies of Exemption orders dated 03.02.2016, 11.03.2016 & 26.05.2017 have been enclosed as Annexure - 1 Series to the writ petitions. It is submitted that the Petitioners- Company submitted application on 24.12.2020 for exemption for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022. Then the Competent Authority heard the matter on several dates and sought some clarifications which were duly submitted by the Petitioners-Company and the Company representatives fully participated in the proceeding and along with the applications, several documents which included confirmation letters issued by Hospitals at Jamshedpur and Consent letter from the recognized Union for seeking exemption from operation of the Act were also enclosed. Thereafter, the Petitioners vide letter dated 14.04.2022 addressed to the Workers' Union sought its opinion as to whether the Workmen are satisfied with facilities provided by the Companies or they want coverage under ESI Act in general. Thereafter, the Union, vide its response dated 18.04.2022, intimated to the Petitioners-Company that the workmen are satisfied with the benefits and facilities provided by the Companies since the same are superior to the benefits stipulated under the ESI Act. It is also pointed out that any attempt for implementation of the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 13 ESI Act would prove disadvantageous to the concerned workmen. 10. It is submitted that the E.S.I. itself inspected the Company Hospital and the report was submitted on 02.02.2015 (i.e. Annexure-6) where it was found that the facilities being offered by the Company are at Par with the medical facilities provided by ESIC/ESIS. However, vide Order dated 26.05.2022 (i.e. Annexure-7) of W.P.(L) No. 4766 of 2022 and Order dated 05.05.2022 (i.e. Annexure-7) of W.P.(L) No. 4767 of 2022, the Labour Secretary has rejected the applications of the Petitioners-Company for exemption of the Petitioners- Company from operation of the Act for a period from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 and 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 respectively. Learned counsel for the Petitioners- Company submitted that the facilities provided by the Petitioners in association with T.M.H. Hospital, which belonged to TATA Steel, are far better than the facilities provided by the ESI. 11. It is submitted that the poor condition of ESI Hospitals, more particularly at Jamshedpur, is well known and none of the employees of Petitioners-Company desire to be sent to the said Hospital and further the Hospital is situated at Adityapur, which was more than 6 K.M. from the factory. It is submitted that even by the impugned orders dated 26.05.2022 and 05.05.2022, challenged in W.P.(L) No. 4766 of 2022 and W.P.(L) No. 4767 of 2022 respectively, the respondent State, i.e. the Labour Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 14 Secretary has found and observed that some of the facilities in sick benefit provided under the E.S.I. Act is superior to that provided by the Company without appreciating the fact that such benefit is extended only to those employees who are in continuous employment for two years or more whereas no such condition applies to the employees of the Company. However, the impugned orders have been passed also on the ground of superior disablement facilities to the covered employees without appreciating the fact that the Petitioners-Company provide rehabilitation allowance, vocational rehabilitation to disabled employee and in case of permanent disablement, the employees are adjusted in lighter jobs and not retrenched at all. Further they are also provided training at no cost to enhance their skills and are paid full wages and other benefits during training. The impugned orders mentioned that the sickness benefit is provided to the employees for a period of 15 days in a year with full wages and for a period of 30 days in a year with half wages whereas the Act stipulates that 70% of wages is payable to an employee for 91 days in a year. Thus, aforesaid finding is perverse as it ignores the sickness benefits provided by the Company where an employee is entitled to Sick Leave, Privilege Leave and Festival Leave with full wages. It is submitted that the impugned order ignores the fact that the benefits being provided by the Corporation is on the basis of contributions made by Employer and Employees, whereas the Petitioners- Company provide benefits to its employees free of cost. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 15 Even the impugned order does not compare all the benefits provided by Petitioners to the employees with the benefits allegedly provided by the Corporation. It is submitted that the impugned orders failed to consider that on the basis of same materials, earlier the Petitioners-Company were granted exemption from the operation of the Act and no material change has taken place for denying exemption to the Petitioners- Company. Thus, it amounts to double jeopardy in forcing the Petitioners-Company to pay contribution under the E.S.I. Act for the period for which it has already provided all the benefits to its employees. 12. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, in support of his contention, placed reliance on certain judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which are as follows:- (i) Employees’ State Insurance Corpn. Versus Distilleries & Chemical Mazdoor Union and Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 604, at Para 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, (ii) Zuari Cement Limited Versus Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad and Others reported in (2015) 7 SCC 690, at Para 9, (iii) The order dated 15.07.1992 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3091 of 2012, from last Para of Page 9 till the concluding part, i.e. the end of Page 10. 13. It is submitted that the medical facilities and all the benefits provided by the Petitioners-Company in Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 16 its Hospital and T.M.H are far superior and better in comparison with the Respondent-ESI and hence, the Orders dated 26.05.2022, 05.05.2022, 26.05.2022 and 05.05.2022 passed in W.P.(L) No. 4766 of 2022, W.P.(L) No. 4767 of 2022, W.P.(L) No. 4769 of 2022 and W.P.(L) No. 4770 of 2022 respectively may be quashed and the writ petitions may be allowed. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State & the E.S.I. have submitted that the impugned Orders dated 26.05.2022, 05.05.2022, 26.05.2022 and 05.05.2022 passed in W.P.(L) No. 4766 of 2022, W.P.(L) No. 4767 of 2022, W.P.(L) No. 4769 of 2022 and W.P.(L) No. 4770 of 2022 respectively are fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court and the writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(L) No. 4766 of 2022, W.P.(L) No. 4767 of 2022, W.P.(L) No. 4769 of 2022 and W.P.(L) No. 4770 of 2022 may be dismissed. It is submitted that under Sickness Benefit of ESI Scheme, periodical payments are made to an insured person during the period of certified sickness occurring in a benefit period when the insured person requires medical treatment and attendance with abstention from work on medical grounds. The maximum duration of sickness benefit is 91 days in two consecutive benefits periods (in one Year). The sickness benefit rate is of 70% of average daily wages of insured person. Moreover, sickness benefit provided under the ESI Act is uniform for all insured person irrespective of daily rated or monthly rated employees. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 17 However, the Petitioners-Company provide their employees paid sick leave for 15 days with full wages or 30 days with half year wages in a year. Thus, E.S.I. provides better facilities than the Petitioners-Company in case of sick leave. It is submitted that the definition of the family as per ESI Act is exhaustive which also includes a child who is infirm by reason of any physical or mental abnormality and is wholly dependant on the earnings of the insured person so long as infirmity continues. It also includes the case in which insured person is unmarried and his or her parents are not alive, a minor brother or sister wholly dependant upon the earnings of the insured person, whereas the Petitioners-Company do not define family and in its policy above persons have not been covered in the family definition. In view of this, the ESI Act is better than the policy of the Petitioners-Company. It is submitted that under the ESI Scheme the maximum duration of Extended Sickness Benefits is 730 days which is payable at the rate of 80% of average daily wages, whereas the Petitioners-Company provides its employees paid sick leave for 15 days with full wages or 30 days with half wages in a year. It is submitted that so far as benefit under Disablement Benefit of ESI Scheme under Section 51 of the Act is concerned, if temporary disability arises out of Employment Injury, then benefit is admissible to an insured disabled person for the entire period, so certified by the Insurance Medical Officer/insurance medical practitioner, for which the insured person does not work Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 18 for wages. This benefit is not subject to contributory conditions and is payable at 90% of the average daily wages, where the disablement, due to an employment injury, results in permanent, partial or total loss of earning capacity, payments are made as periodical cash to the insured persons for life depending on the loss of earning capacity as may be certified by a duly constituted medical board. However, in case of the Petitioners- Company all employees are covered by the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. As per Section 4 of the Workmen Compensation Act disablement benefit is given @ rate of 50 % of monthly wages of the deceased multiplied by the relevant factor in case of deaths, amount equal to 60 % of the monthly wages multiplied by the relevant factor and in case of permanent partial disablement percentage amount of loss of earning. It is submitted that under ESI Scheme, Maternity Benefit implies periodical payment to an insured woman in case of Confinement or Miscarriage or Sickness arising out of pregnancy, confinement, premature birth of child or miscarriage. The daily rate of benefit is equal to the average daily wages. Maternity benefit is payable for maximum period of 26 weeks in case of confinement, Six (06) weeks in case of miscarriage and additional one month in case of sickness arising out of pregnancy, confinement, premature birth of the child or miscarriage or medical termination of pregnancy. Maternity benefit continues to be payable in the event of death of an insured woman during her confinement or during the period of Eight (08) weeks Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 19 immediately following her confinement leaving behind a child for the whole of that period and if the child also dies during the said period, until the death of the child. Whereas the Petitioners-Company provides maternity benefit under Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act and it is from the date of absence to the day of delivery and also as per Section 10 of the Maternity Benefit Act, additional leave of one month apart from the benefit under Section 5 is given. Therefore, the maternity benefits provided under ESI scheme is better than that provided under the Maternity Benefit Act. It is submitted that under Dependent Benefit of ESI Scheme if an employee dies during employment injury, besides the widow and dependent children, other dependents like parents, grand-parents, minor illegitimate son & minor illegitimate daughter & other category of dependents are eligible for these benefits periodically at the ratio fixed in respect of each of such dependent, the total of which works out to 90% of wages. They are eligible for benefits till death and in case of the son and daughter until they attain the age of 25 years. The ESIC has also included the commuting accident as Employment injury w.e.f. 01.06.2010 vide amendment in the ESI Act 1948 where the accident occurring while commuting from his/her residence to the place of Employment to his residence has been covered as Employment Injury. However, in the case of Petitioners- Company all employees are covered by the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Hence, the Dependent Benefit Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 20 provided by the Petitioners-Company is neither better nor at par with that being provided under the ESI Scheme. 15. It is submitted that under ESI Act, in the event of the death of the insured, Rs. 15,000/- is payable for the funeral expenses. Apart from person having permanent disability, this is also provided to the person not in employment as long as he is eligible for any benefit. However, in case of Petitioners-Company an amount upto Rs. 10,000/-is payable as a funeral expense. 16. It is submitted that under medical bonus Scheme of ESI, Rs. 7,500/- is payable for the delivery of the insured woman or the wife of the insured person in an area where the ESI act is not applicable. However, no such information about the benefit has been provided by the Petitioners-Company. 17. It is submitted that under the ESI Scheme, if an insured person becomes unemployed due to the closure of the factory or due to retrenchment or permanent disability arising out of non-employment injury, the insured person is entitled to unemployment allowance for a total period of 24 months during his entire tenure, the daily rate of which shall be 50% of the standard benefit rate as defined under Rule 2 (7a) of the ESI (Central) Rules, 1950 and also the insured person and his family are, for this period, entitled to medical benefits from dispensary/ hospital of ESI. However, no such benefit has been provided by the Petitioners-Company. 18. Under ESI Scheme after the retirement of the insured person, medical benefits are provided to the husband and wife in the dispensaries and hospitals of the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 21 Corporation on monthly advance payment of Rs. 10 (Rs. 120 Per Year). However, no such facility has been provided by the Petitioners-Company. It is submitted that under ESI Scheme there is provision of reservation of upto 5% in the Medical College of ESI for the ward of the insured person. However, no such provision of reservation is available in the Petitioners-Company. It is submitted that under The Atal Beemit Vyakti Kalyan Yojna (ABVKY) of ESIC any employee who faces unemployment due to boycott, under this scheme 25%/50% of their average daily wages are deposited directly into the account of the insured which can be paid up to a maximum period of 90 days. However, no such benefit is provided by the Petitioners-Company. 19. It is submitted that under Covid-19 relief plan of ESI, in the event of unfortunate death of the employee due to Covid-19, 90% of the average salary of the deceased worker is distributed every month among eligible dependent family members of the deceased worker. The Scheme will also cover death related to covid-19 that occurs within 30 days after recovery from it. However, no such facility has been provided by the Petitioners- Company. It is submitted that though the Petitioners- Company are providing various benefits to their employees, but the same are not comparable to the superior benefits provided under the ESI Act, 1948 and hence, considering the above facts, the Respondent No. 2 has not granted Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 22 exemption to the Petitioners-Company under the provisions of E.S.I Act, 1948 under Sections 87, read with Section 91- A, for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022, 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021, 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023, 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022, vide impugned orders dated 26.05.2022, 05.05.2022, 26.05.2022 and 05.05.2022 respectively, hence, there is no illegality in the impugned orders and the writ petitions may be dismissed. 20. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, in support of his contention, placed reliance upon certain judgments which are follows:- (i) Gasket Radiators (P) Ltd. v. ESI Corpn. reported in (1985) 2 SCC 68, at Para 5, 6, 7, (ii) Employees’ State Insurance Corpn. v. Hotel Kalpaka International reported in (1993) 2 SCC 9, at Para 9, (iii) Regional Director, E.S.I Corporation Versus Kerala State Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. And Others reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 148, at Para 2 and 5:- (iv) Employees’ State Insurance Corpn. Versus Harrison Malayalam Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1993) 4 SCC 361, at Para 3, (v) Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Versus Employees’ State Insurance Corpn. reported in (1996) 2 SCC 682, at Para 5 and 6, (vi) Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Versus Narayan Chandra Rajkhowa and Others reported in (1997) 11 SCC 234, Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 23 (vii) ESI Corpn. v. Harrison Malayalam (P) Ltd. reported in (1998) 9 SCC 74, (viii) Transport Corporation of India Versus Employees’ State Insurance Corpn. and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 332- Passing reference. (ix) Bangalore Turf Club Limited Versus Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and other cases reported in (2014) 9 SCC 657, (x) Ennore Foundries Ltd. v. Government of India, reported in 2000 SCC OnLine Mad 794, (xi) Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. v. ESI Corpn., reported in (2015) 1 SCC 142, (xii) Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. versus ESI Corpn., reported in (2016) 4 SCC 521, (xiii) ESI Corpn. v. Kakinada Municipality, reported in (2022) 2 SCC 56, (xiv) Transport Corpn. of India Ltd. versus ESI Corpn., reported in (2021) 11 SCC 335, (xv) Ramchand Onkarlal Agarwal v. Union of India, reported in 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 513, (xvi) Bharath Coffee House v. Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, reported in 2006 SCC OnLine Ker 788, Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 24 (xvii) Trans Asian Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ESI Corporation, reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Ker 11345 (xviii) Joint Director, Sub-Regional Office, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Hubli v. Belgaum District Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Limited, Belgaum, reported in 2008 SCC OnLine Kar 122, (xix) COCOA Marketing and Processing Co-Op Ltd. v. Government Labour Department, reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Kar 2500 (xx) National Cement Workers Union v. Govt. of T.N., reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 2389 (xxi) Madras Fertilizers Ltd. v. ESI Corporation, reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 2883, (xxii) Rane Engine Valves Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 2866, (xxiii) Madras Race Club v. Secretary to Govt., reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 20898 21. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3- Employees State Insurance Corporation, after adopting the argument of the Respondent-State, submits that the E.S.I. provides better facilities than the Petitioners-Company and its associate T.M.H. Hospital, TATA Steel. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 25 It is submitted that the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 is a social legislation and in order to protect the employees, it was deemed necessary to streamline the process of making of application and dealing with the application so that the entity applying was diligent in its exemption application and pursues the same timely. It is submitted that in the light of the same and to avoid any trouble to the employees in general and to ensure coverage on timely basis. Section 91-A has been amended which is in line with the object of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The Employees State Insurance Act is a Social Security legislation and the contributions received from the establishments are used for providing medical facilities and other benefits including insurance, disability benefit, pension etc. to the employees/their dependents and for streamlining the same and to ensure that the employers do not usurp the purpose of the enactment and for the same Section 91-A has been amended restricting grant of exemption only from prospective effect to ensure that the employer seeking exemption files the same within time, pursues it and obtains exemption much prior to the period of coverage. It is submitted that the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 is a self-contained code and the time factor as mentioned therein is required to be strictly abided with. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 26 It is submitted that the Petitioners- Company were not diligent in pursuing the exemption applications. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that the employees of Petitioners organization, i.e. M/s JEMCO Ltd. are considered as employees of M/s Tata Steel Ltd. and enjoy the same benefits as the regular employees of M/s Tata Steel Ltd. It is expressly denied that all benefits being granted to the employees of M/s Tata Steel Ltd. are being granted in totality to the employees of the Petitioners organization. It is submitted that the statement made in the writ petition to the effect that the medical facilities being offered and provided by the Petitioners over the years has been enhanced and has been continuously increasing both qualitatively and quantitively, are false, misleading and self-contradictory. It is further submitted that the statement that the Petitioners-Company, apart from having its own full-fledged 32 bed hospital, is now affiliated to Tata Main Hospital for treatment of their employees and eligible members of the employees, and the facilities enjoyed by its employees and their family members/ dependents is far in excess and better than those provided by the ESIC and the Petitioners have been providing sickness benefits by availing sick leave with full pay/half pay, disablement benefit in case of Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 27 temporary disablement, compensation under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923 and maternity benefit as per Maternity Benefit Act and apart from these various other facilities are being provided to the Petitioners-Company and its employees and it has been detailed in its application which is far in excess to that provided by the ESIC, are also false, misleading and self- contradictory. It is submitted that the Petitioners- Company submitted application on 22.12.2021 for exemption for the period from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 and thereafter matter was heard by the competent authority and some clarification was sought for and the representatives of the Petitioners-Company fully participated in the proceeding and several documents including confirmation letter issued by Hospitals at Jamshedpur and Consent letter from the recognized Union for seeking exemption from operation of the Act were also enclosed along with the applications, are not tenable in view of the fact that as per letter of Tata Steel dated 06.02.2004, the employees of Petitioners organization are extended same benefits as other Associated companies, which implies that benefits at par with Tata Steel is not granted. Further, offer letters of few hospitals have been provided which provided limited facilities and is not available throughout the weekday. Also, grant of such facilities through private hospitals, Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 28 whose credentials and infrastructure are not known, itself casts doubt about the facilities being imparted. It is submitted that the statements made in the writ petition that the Petitioners-Company vide letter dated 14.04.2022 sought the opinion of the Worker’s Union whether the workmen are satisfied with facilities provided by the Petitioners-Company or they want coverage under ESI Act in general. It is submitted that apart from medical facilities, various benefits including sickness, death, disability, etc. are also provided by the Respondent Corporation. In the instant case, while considering the exemption application, the respondent was able to substantiate that the benefits are far from superior than the benefits being granted to the employees of the Petitioners and hence, the same was rightly rejected. It is submitted that the Petitioners are misleading this Court in as much the Petitioners are trying to include the compulsory benefits required to be granted under various enactments like Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, Maternity Benefit Act, Employees Compensation Act etc. as being granted by it. The same is payable irrespective of any scheme etc. Further, it is stated that the said report is of the year 2005 and is only in relation to medical facility. Various improvement have taken place and there are various tie ups with hospitals too. The benefits like disability, sickness, maternity, death, unemployment etc. provided by the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 29 Petitioners establishment is not even at par with that provided under ESI Act. It is further submitted that the E.S.I. had appeared and filed its written reply and also enclosed comparative chart to establish that its services and facilities are superior to that of the Petitioners. It is submitted that statement made in the writ petition that the ESI itself inspected the Company Hospital and the report was submitted on 02.02.2015 (i.e. Annexure-6) where it was found that the facilities being offered by the Company is at Par with the medical facilities provided by ESIC/ESIS, is misleading. It is submitted that the said inspection report is only with respect to medical facilities are inspected in 2015. The same does not deal with the aspect of other benefits including insurance, disability, sickness, maternity, death, unemployment etc. provided by the Petitioners establishment which is not even at par with that provided under ESI Act. It is submitted that averments made in the writ petition that since the aforesaid inspection, the nature and quality of facilities have only increased and are better that found on the date of inspection and the poor condition of ESI Hospital more particularly at Jamshedpur is well known and none of employees of Petitioners-Company desire to be sent to the said Hospital and further the Hospital is situated at Adityapur, which is more than 6 k.m. from the Factory, Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 30 are denied and disputed. It is stated that the services and facilities of the ESI Corporation are better as compared to those given by the Petitioners organization. It is submitted that ESIC provides medical, death, disability, sickness and other benefits to the employees including after their retirement too. The contribution is statutory contribution and is effective even after cessation of employment apart from numerous benefits granted during course of employment. The allegation made in the writ petition are denied and disputed. As stated above, the benefits being provided by M/s ESIC is far superior than that being provided by the Petitioners, hence, the writ petitions may be dismissed. 22. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the E.S.I., has placed reliance upon certain judgments, which are as follows: (i) Lark Laboratories (India) Ltd. Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., reported in 2006 SCC OnLine Del 804, at Para 9, 18 and 19, (ii) Chavara Block Khadi Producers Industrial Co- Operative Society Ltd., No.C.Ind (Q) 152, Thevalkara P.O., Kollam Dist., Rep. by, By Adv. Sri S. Ramesh Babu Versus 1. State of Kerala, represented by its Secretary, Labour & Rehabilitation Department, Secretariate, Thiruvannanthapurm reported in (2016) SCC OnLine Ker 39471 23. Perused the Record and considered the submission of both the sides. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 31 24. Before entering into the merits of this case, it is relevant to refer to the Section 87, 91-A of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, which read as follows:- “Section 87:- Exemption of a factory or establishment or class of factories or establishments The appropriate government may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such condition as may be specified in the notification, exempt any factory or establishment or class of factories or establishments in any specified area from the operation of the Act for a period not exceeding one year and may from time to time by like notification renew any such exemption for periods not exceeding one year at a time. “Section 91-A-:- Exemptions to be either prospective or retrospective Any notification granting exemption under section 87, section 88, section 90 or section 91 may be issued so as to take effect either prospectively or retrospectively on such date as may be specified therein.” 25. From perusal of the impugned orders dated 26.05.2022 and 05.05.2022, i.e. Annexure-7 in W.P.(L) No. 4766 of 2022 and W.P.(L) No. 4767 of 2022, it would appear that the Labour Secretary has rejected the claim of the Petitioners-Company on the following grounds:- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 32 (i) Medical Benefits/Sickness benefits :- Under E.S.I., for Medical illness benefit, a particular year can be divided into two parts by the E.S.I. facility and for which total 91 days is payable. The Special benefit is that if the Workmen has contributed for a particular period, then, even if he has left the job the said Workman is entitled to medical benefit for the said period. Even after being discharged from his job he can be given the benefit of treatment, whereas such benefit is not being given by the Employer. Apart from this, he is paid benefit of 70% cash as daily Mazdoor during course of his treatment, which means that the workmen will be entitled to receive 70% of its cash benefit towards work for 91 days with the medical treatment. However, so far as Company is concerned, the Company used to pay 15 days illness benefit for the full salary or 30 days for the half salary. Thus, facility of E.S.I. is better than the Petitioners-Company. (ii) Extended illness benefit :– the period of treatment and cash benefit is available in E.S.I. for 730 days and during the said period the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 33 Labour/Workman is paid average daily wages at the rate of 80% during the course of treatment. However, the Petitioners-Company has not mentioned this extended illness in its treatment, hence, this facility is better under the E.S.I. Act instead of Petitioners-Company. (iii) Disablement benefits:- The Workman is paid 90% of average daily salary under E.S.I. Act, if any labour is disabled from the first day of his work and if the said workman is permanently disabled then he will be paid pension for the whole life as per decision of the Medical Board. Even the person is not liable to remain in work for taking the benefit of the insurance under the E.S.I. Act. However, the company pays compensation to the Workman as per provisions of Workman Compensation Act, 1923. (iv) Maternity Leave :- The E.S.I. provides maternity leave for 26 weeks and Six weeks for the abortion for the insured women during her period of contribution and is paid average daily labour charges per day at the rate of 100% and apart from this, if necessary, she can be given additional leave for 30 days. Even there is provision of maternity leave to commissioning and adopted mothers. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 34 However, the Company provides maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017. (v) Dependency Benefit :- If some insured person dies during course of employment due to injury, then, as per E.S.I. Act, there is provision for giving cash benefit to the dependent person till death/remarriage/minor, whichever is applicable. However, Company used to pay pension and medical facility to the dependent of workman as per Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. (vi) Apart from this, it has also been pointed out that the E.S.I. is better because it gives cover even to the Workmen getting pay less than Rs.21,000/-, whereas the Workmen getting Rs. 21,000/- salary are very few in the Petitioners-Company and such employee require more social security. 26. However, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioners-Company that the benefits provided by the Petitioners-Company are as follows:- (i) Medical Benefits:- a. ISWP provides medical benefits to its retired employees, their spouses and to their dependent Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 35 children (up to 21 years of son and unmarried daughter irrespective of her age) so long they get the facility b. In case of disabled employees ISWP provides medical facilities to such employee and his spouse and children free of cost. c. As regards super specialist cases referred to other hospital, ISWP refers to Tata Memorial Hospital, Jamshedpur, TCIL Hospital Jamshedpur, Mercy Hospital Jamshedpur Peerless Hospital, Kolkata CMCH Vellore and Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences Kolkata depending about the severity of cases. d. ISWP provides intermittently free medical check up of its all employees from recognized doctors and health organizations. e. ISWP management is health conscious and has taken first step implementing as “Tobacco Free Zone” (ii) Sickness Leave a. ISWP has a system of accumulation of sick leave upto 60 days in case the employee do not avail the leave during his service he can encash it after his retirement at the rate of his last wage drawn. However, he can avail the accumulated sick leave for his requirement during his service with full wages. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 36 b. 91 days sickness leave provided by ESIC reduces the working days to 176 hence loss of manpower (365-52 (Sundays)= 313-42 CL/ PL=272-5(NH)=267-91 SL by ESIC) = 176 Working days. (iii) Extended Leave: Similarly, so far as extended leave is concerned, the Petitioners-Company provides leave with full wages till the employee has recovered. (iv) Disablement benefits:- a. ISWP provides employment to one of the dependents of workmen who dies or suffer permanent total disablement as a result of injury on work in that case the workman would be provided company’s accommodation as per his/her eligibility. b. If an employee is medically unfit due to an accident in course of employment he will continue to pay his full wages with Dearness Allowance as IOW/IOD benefit from the date the employee becomes medically unfit till the employee is declared medically fit. c. ISWP provides compensation during the period of disablement which shall continue to be paid on the basis of the last wage drawn immediately after the employee met with the accident. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 37 Unfit period counted as special leave. d. Retention and rehabilitation on other suitable jobs. e. Gives free education to children of such employee in company’s school. (v) Maternity Benefits:- a. Four (04) weeks of extra leave in case of weakness arises out of miscarriage, pregnancy, delivery and premature delivery. b. Maternity benefits paid in advance from the date of expected delivery. c. Leave with wages at full rates for a period of six weeks immediately following the day of miscarriage or medical termination of pregnancy. d. Extra leave with wages at the full rate for a maximum period of one month for illness out of pregnancy, delivery, premature birth. 27. It appears that the maternity benefit of the E.S.I. is better than the Petitioners-Company, but it also appears that the Petitioners-Company is giving sufficient leave along with wages to the workers in question. (vi) Compensation in case of death in Harness:- a. ISWP provides employment to one of the dependents of workman who dies or suffer permanent total disablement as a result of injury on work in that case the workman would Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 38 be provided company’s accommodation as per his/her eligibility. b. Benefits provided as per workman’s compensation Act are extended as ex-gratia to injury cases resulting in death in an accident during journey from residence to place of work and back within one hour of the start or end of his duty hours provide the accident takes place on the normal route of journey to the place of work. (vii) Rehabilitation allowances:- a. Company provides to its employees as may require by them free of cost artificial limbs, pacemakers, hearing aid, cellular limbo, sorrel belt, special shoes, boot and spinal brace. Such employee is also provided with special leave with full wages and DA during the period of such unfitness b. In case of permanent disablement the employee is continued in service with lighter job with full payment without retrenchment. He is also provided training free of cost to enhance his skill in the new job so to improve the level of wages. c. Medical bonus is provided to female employees and wives and daughters of employee in the company’s hospital free of costs. The company also provides free of cost medical facilities for Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 39 first confinement of the daughter of an employee. d. Unemployment of an employee by way of retrenchment does not arise as there is no agreement of retrenchment between the employees Union and the Management. The employees are either re-trained or observed in new units or settled under handsome early separation scheme which inter alia entitles them. Their spouses and family members are provided medical benefits in company’s hospital/TMH till their notional age of superannuation and (viii) Funeral Expenses:- a. On the event of the death of an employee while in service or his/her dependent death an amount of Rs.2,500/- is paid by the company to his legal heir for funeral expenses. Company also provides free transporting facility for carrying the dead body from hospital to residence and residence to cremation place. b. Voluntary scheme of donation for the dependents of the employee in the event of death in service. These employees and voluntarily collected from the employees and given to the dependent of the deceased. 28. So far as rejection of the claim of the Petitioners-Company on ground No. 5, i.e. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 40 Dependency Benefit, as given in the impugned order is concerned, it is evident that the Petitioners- Company is providing relief much better than the E.S.I. as it is giving compensation in case of death of Workmen in harness and also the benefits like Dependency Benefits. 29. The Petitioners-Company have also submitted chart of comparative benefits to the employees extended by the Petitioners-Company and the ESI Corporation enclosed as Annexure-5 to the memo of the writ petitions, which are as follows:- COMPARATIVE BENEFITS TO EMPLOYEES UNDER ESI AND THE PETITIONERS-COMPANIES Benefit under the ESI is conditional i.e. it is available to the employees (Insured Persons) and the members of their family subject to the payment of contributions. Free medical facilities are extended to the employees and their family members in ISWP Hospital and authorized and specialized Hospitals i.e. Tata Main Hospital, Tinplate Hospital, Mercy Hospital etc. Medicine is a field where there is always an element of chance and for many diseases that are critical, the condition of the patient could be either improved or deteriorated after the treatment: however, the patient and his / her loved ones would rightfully expect that they get the best treatment and that they not be subject to negligence. Taking cue from this ideology, the medical team at ISWP inspires itself to perform at the highest level. Great care is taken to provide the best of care and have the greatest respect for the life and limb of the patient. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 41 II. JEMCO is a division of M/s ISWP Ltd. has its own hospital within its works campus with all necessary facilities and benefits. This hospital is at a distance of 2 kms. from the Works gate. The main features of ISWP hospital are as follows:- Established: 1946 Capacity: 15 Beds Facilities: Emergency Ward, Dispensary, Medicine Stores, Operation Theatre, Labour Room, Pathological Lab, Dental Chair, Radiology and Ambulance facility round the clock. Recipient of services: All employees & dependents of ISWP employees and most notably being the health facilities provided to unmarried sisters. Major Tie ups: Tata Main Hospital, Tinplate Company of India Ltd. (TCIL) Hospital, Mercy Hospital, Ardeshir Dalal Memorial Hospital (ADMH), Eye Hospital, & Meherbai Tata Memorial Hospital, etc. Tie Ups with Diagnostic Centers: M/s. Sai Scan & Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur, Dr. Chawla Path Computerized Path Lab & Cardiac Test Centre, Jamshedpur Reported incident: THERE IS NO REPORTED CASE OR INCIDENTS OF NON-CARE OF EMPLOYEES OR THEIR DEPENDENTS. Brief Note about the ISWP Hospital: Enclosed as Annexure A. Main features of ISWP tie ups: Being a subsidiary of Tata Steel, all employees of ISWP have access to the medical facility provided by the Tata Steel principal hospital, i.e the Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur. The main features of Tata Main Hospital are as the following: i Tata Main Hospital (TMH) is one of the best in the Eastern Zone of the country. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 42 ii. It has 1052 beds, 72 single bed, A.C. cabins, Intensive Care Unit, Critical Care Unit, Maternity Ward, Labour Room, Burn Unit, Children ward, Nursery, Dental wing, Cardio, Eye, ENT, Physiotherapy, Nuclear Medicine, Oncology Depts. iii. All diagnostic and test facilities like pathology, radiology. iv. It also has a well-equipped Operation theatre for surgical, neuro surgical and gynecology department, dialysis facility, morgue and laundry. v. Additionally a Nursing school is run in TMH, vi. TMH also has the honour of being a recognized hospital for DNB training (equivalent to MD/MS etc. degrees) and conducts examinations in specialized courses of Medical and surgical branches. Besides this, an employee of ISWP also has access to the following medical facilities: i. Tinplate Company Hospital, Jamshedpur- It has Indoor/Outdoor facility, single bed A.C. cabins, Intensive Care Unit, Critical Care Unit, Maternity Ward, Labour Room, Children ward, Nursery, Dental wing, Cardio, Eye, ENT, Physiotherapy, Nuclear Medicine, Oncology Depts. ii. Mercy Hospital, Jamshedpur iii. ADMH, Jamshedpur: It is a hospital with all equipment & facilities related to Tuberculosis, Dialysis. iv. Eye Hospital, Sakchi:- all facilities related to treatment of eye are available. v. Meherbai Tata Memorial Hospital: Cancer and other diseases and various types of scanning. The facilities are readily available to the employees and their families in close proximity to their work place / residence. Referrals: In all cases, maximum liberty for purposes of super specialized is exercised to make referrals to any prominent centre of medical facility and as such the employee is assured of the very best of care and treatment within time and hassle free. The referrals are open to and are availed at the cost of the company. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 43 Some important referrals are as following: i. Christian Medical College, Vellore, ii. Apollo Hospital Groups, iii. Peerless Hospital, Kolkata, iv. Shankar Netralaya, Chennai, v. Tata Cancer Hospital, Mumbai, vi. All Indian Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, etc. vii. Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences, viii. Meharbai Tata Memorial Hospital, Jamshedpur. Analysis of the benefits under ESI scheme and the company provided scheme. The benefits payable under the ESI is calculated on the basis of the "Standard Benefit Rates" as per the Table appended to Rule 54 of the ESI (Central) Rules 1950; which is much less than the full Daily or Monthly rate at which the Company calculates the benefit for its employees. Any person joining the employment of ISWP is eligible for free medical facility, including all facilities, from the day of his joining employment. His dependents are also eligible for free medical treatment, including all facilities, from the day the person joins employment. In case of ESIC, the insured is entitled for medical benefits only after completing 78 days of service and has to pay certain contribution for being eligible for medical benefits. Sr.No. Under ESI Benefits offered by the company authorized Hospitals i.e. TMH, MTMH,TCIL Hospital, Mercy Hospital, ADMH, Eye Hospital, Sakchi etc. 1. i.e. Comprehensive medical care to an insured and their families through ESI Dispensaries, Hospitals, Specialists service MEDICAL BENEFITS All permanent, temporary employees employed in the company are free medical treatment and medicines from the hospital for self, spouse, dependent parents, brothers and sisters, sons up to the age of 21 years Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 44 like heart surgery , Neuro surgery, bone marrow transplant, MRI, Angiography is provided ii. Treatment under Indian system like Ayurvedic, Homeopathy, Unani is also available iii. Apart from this the retired Insured persons and their spouses till the age of superannuation are also eligible for Medical Benefit against a monthly contribution of Rs.10/- per month in lump sum for 1 year in advance. and daughters up to date of their marriage & first confinement. For Retired Persons: All retired employees (who had put in at least 20 years' service), their spouses and dependent parents are eligible for free medical services in Company's dispensaries and hospital for life without any contribution unlike ESIC which requires a minimum of 5 years of service and a monthly contribution of Rs. 10 to avail this facility. i. Employees, separated under the Early Separation Schemes (ESS), are also eligible for free treatment and medicine from the company's hospital for self, spouse and their dependent parents for life. For their sons f daughters the treatment continues as applicable to the sons and daughter of serving employees. ii Wives of employees are entitled for free pre-natal and post-natal care including delivery facilities in the Hospital with fully equipped Labour Rooms to handle delivery as well as Caesarian cases. iii Daughters of an employee are provided free pre & post-natal treatment including delivery facilities in the company's hospital, for first confinement. Applicable to ESS taken employee also. iv. TMH is well equipped with Operation Theatre and a team of Surgeons for all types of major/ super major, surgery and in certain cases, employees are referred to renowned hospitals such as BM Birla, Apollo Group of Hospitals, CMCH-Vellore, Ruby hospital and Rabindranath Tagore Hospital Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 45 etc. for super specialized treatment. v. Neurosurgery is available in TMH and very serious and critical cases are referred to CMC-Vellore and Apollo Group of hospitals & other reputed specialized hospitals. vi. Dialysis cases are treated at Tata Main Hospital at Jamshedpur & ADAM Hospital, Jamshedpur. vii. Cancer patients are referred to Meherbai Tata Memorial Hospital (MTMH) at Jamshedpur and to Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai. viii. Bone Marrow transplant cases are referred to CMC-Vellore ix. For MRI the cases are referred to MTMH at Jamshedpur. x. Angiography/Angioplasty, cases are referred to BM Birta, Apollo Group of Hospitals, CMCH-Vellore and Ruby Hospital- Kolkata, Peerless Hospital, Kolkata ete.. xi. For Eye there are in-house facilities at Thi and Eye Hospital, Sakchi. Very serious surgical cases are referred to Shankar Netralaya, Chennai xii. For ENT there are in-house facilities. Very serious surgical disease are referred to CMCH-Vellore. xiii. Full-fledged Burn Unit with all modern facilities at Tata Man Hospital, Jamshedpur for Burn Injuries xiv. Full-fledged Intensive Care Unit (19 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 46 beds), Critical Care Unit 12 beds) at TMH xv. It may be mentioned that whenever the employees are referred to hospitals outside, the patient and one escort attendant is allowed to travel and stay with him/her and the expenditure is borne by the company. xvi. TMH has a fully equipped Physiotherapy unit to accommodate 50 patients at a time. xvii. ISWP Hospital facilities are operating for outdoor patients from 8 am, to 6 p.m. xviii. Fully equipped Operation theatre with modem instrumentation at company hospital. xix. Access to full-fledged Pathology Dept, and X-Ray Dept. xx. Emergency section operating 24 hrs, with full facilities of immediate care like X Ray & access to OT etc. at company hospital. xxi. Free hospital uniform and free food during indoor treatment as instructed by treating Doctor/Dietician. Immunization services to the children of the employees free of cost. xxii. Free ambulance services to bring and drop the sick employee/ dependents to the hospital and home after discharge on a nominal charge of Rs.50/- one side. However, no charge for patients who are hospitalized in our hospital and referred to TMH/Tinplate or any tie-up hospitals. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 47 xxiii. Morgue to keep the dead body. Transport service to burning ghat through Company's vehicle free of cost for employees and their family members. xxiv. Free medical facilities to disabled employees and their spouses for life xxv. Naturopathy treatment at Mahatma Gandhi Arogya Bhawan free of cost. xxvi. Access to Two separate Homoeopathy Clinics in the township with more than 7 (seven) doctors. Medicines in these clinics are dispensed free. 2. SICKNESS BENEFIT This benefit is in the form of cash compensation at the rate of 70% of wages during period of certified sickness for a maximum 91 days in a year. SICKNESS BENEFIT Employees are eligible for SL, PL & FL with full wages as per the table below: Category of Employees Type of Leave Daily Rated Monthly Rated SL 15 15 PL 15 30 CL/FL 7/4 7/4 Accumulation of SL 60 With half pay 60 With half pay=120 Accumulation of PL 100 days 240 days SL=Sick Leave PL=Privilege Leave CL= Casual Leave FL=Festival Leave All the above leaves are with full wages. While the ESI’s benefit is provided on contribution for at least 78 days in the relevant contribution period, there is no contribution and hence any such contribution period in ISWP’s scheme. In case of sickness the employees is allowed to sick leave to the extent of his/her accumulation of sick leave. If the sick leave Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 48 is exhausted, he is allowed PL for the period of sickness to the accumulated extend. Such leave is with wages. The above leave is at full rate of the salary and not on the rate of seventy per cent as under ESI. 3. EXTENDED SICKNESS BENEFIT Sickness Benefit extendable up to two years at the rate of 80% of wages in case of 34 specified malignant diseases. ESI Corporation cares for insured persons almost till they recovered from such chronic diseases. EXTENDED SICKNESS BENEFIT While the ESI gives extended sickness benefit only if the insured person has been in continuous employment for a period of two years or more in a factory or establishment to which the Act applies, no such conditions apply in case of ISWP. The benefits apply once the employee gets employment in the company. 4. MATERNITY BENEFIT This benefit is available for 26 weeks at the rate double the rate of standard benefit in case of confinement. Additional one month’s maternity benefit is also available in case of sickness arising out of pregnancy confinement, premature birth, miscarriage, subject to contribution of 70 days in the preceding year. MATERNITY BENEFIT ESI Benefit ISWP Benefit Maternity Benefit on payment of contribution for 70 days in immediately preceding two consecutive contribution periods Any female employee becomes eligible for maternity benefit on completion of 80 days service without making any contribution. It offers 26 weeks of maternity leave on full pay. No such available benefits Co.’s hospital provides maternity benefits to all the female employees as per the provision of Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 free of cost. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 49 Maternity leave with full rate of wages for 26 weeks (Pre +Post-natal) If the actual date of delivery exceeds the expected date of delivery, the gap between the expected and actual date of delivery is treated as pre-natal, which is permitted for a period not more than 8 weeks. 6 months of extra leave in case of miscarriage. Additional leave of 1 month for illness certified by a registered medical practitioner, arising out of pregnancy, delivery, premature birth of child or miscarriage. Women employees, with children of 5 years of age or below, is entitled to Additional Privileged Leave of 15 days on full pay every year. The maternity benefit rate is the full rate of wages of the female employees. Nursing Breaks: The woman employee joining duty after delivery shall be granted four breaks in a day, each of duration 30 minutes. 5. DISABLEMENT BENEFIT This benefit is available during the entire period of incapacity at the rate of almost 90% of the wages on account of injuries sustained during DISABLEMENT BENEFIT 1. All workmen (permanent/ temporary) covered under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Full free medical facilities in case of permanent or total disablement during unfit period. 2. Unfit period counted as special leave (other than earned leave) with full wages Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 50 and out of employment. However, in case of permanent disablement, benefit is paid at the rate of 90% of wages in the form of monthly payment depending upon the extent of loss of earning capacity as certified by the Medical Board. (including incentive bonus), from day one. 3. Same benefit to employee meeting accident during one hour period of coming for and going after duty. Same benefit to employees not covered under Workmen Compensation Act as "Injury on Duty". Retention and rehabilitation on other suitable jobs without any cut in the wages and with statutory compensation for total permanent disablement cases. Employee Family Benefit Scheme for permanent total disablement/permanent medical unfitness including IOW/IOD cases wherein last drawn salary is paid monthly till attainment of the age of superannuation. 6. DEPENDENT BENEFIT In case an employee dies because of employment injury, besides the widow and dependent children, other dependent like parents, grandparents, minor illegimate son and minor illegitimate daughter and other category of dependents are eligible for this benefit periodically at the ratio fixed in respect of each such dependent, the DEPENDENT BENEFIT Immediate permanent employment to dependent in case of death/out of employment Injury. Lifelong continuity of medical benefit to the widow of the deceased employee. Same company's accommodation to the abovementioned dependent if deceased employee had been provided such accommodation. There is provision of Pension Scheme for the payment of pension to widow/widower children, orphan under Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. Further, Handicapped/mentally retarded children of employees are entitled to free medical facilities from company hospital, irrespective of their age. This facility is Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 51 total of which works out to 90% of wages and they are eligible to benefit till death/till they are minor. provided to the children of the employee on certification of the doctors. Privilege Leave up to 120 days for converted monthly employees and upto 240 days for monthly rated employees & officers Full Wages. Medical facility of children / family members. Free medical and education facility is provided to the children of the employee. W.P.(L) No. 4769 of 2022 and W.P.(L) No.4770 of 2022 30. It appears from the pleadings that the Indian Steel and Wire Production Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ISWPL), under its previous and erstwhile management headed by Ravi Inder Singh and Indra Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd. became a sick Industrial company with the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “SICA” and was declared as such by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as “BIFR”) on 24th September, 2001. It appears from the pleadings that the Industrial Development Bank of India was appointed as the Operating Agency by BIFR and 31st March, 2002 was fixed for ascertaining the liability of the erstwhile management of M/s ISWPL and pursuant to the direction of the BIFR the operating agency Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 52 issued advertisement for the change of management of M/s ISWPL. It is stated that some dues were to be paid to M/s Tata Steel Ltd. on account of supply of electricity, raw materials etc. and Tata Steel also submitted a proposal for rehabilitation. In the meantime, on 22.10.2003 the BIFR sanctioned the scheme for rehabilitation of M/s ISWP based on the proposal of the Tata Steel. It has been stated that vide order dated 22.11.2003, the BIFR directed that the scheme sanctioned on 22.10.2003 should be released for implementation by all concerned. Thus, the Petitioners-Company has come out of BIFR. It appears that other steps were also taken for strengthening the organization and the Petitioners’ factories were refurnished and production and clearance commenced and the persons employed in the factories which were lying closed for six years joined work. However, no such document has been enclosed. 31. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioners-Company that certain benefits provided by the Petitioners-Company, which were compared with the facilities given by the E.S.I.C. as grounds for rejection in the impugned orders dated 26.05.2022 and 06.05.2022, i.e. Annexure-7 in W.P.(L) No. 4769 of 2022 and W.P.(L) No.4770 of 2022 respectively, are as follows:- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 53 (i) Medical Benefits/Sickness benefits :-Under E.S.I., for Medical illness benefit, a particular year can be divided into two parts by the E.S.I. facility and for which total 91 days is payable. The Special benefit is that if the Workmen has contributed for a particular period, then, even if he has left the job the said Workman is entitled to medical benefit for the said period. Even after being discharged from his job he can be given the benefit of treatment, whereas such benefit is not being given by the employer. Apart from this, he is paid benefit of 70% cash as daily Mazdoor during course of his treatment, which means that the workmen will be entitled to receive 70% of its cash benefit towards work for 91 days with the medical treatment. However, so far as Company is concerned, the Company used to pay 15 days illness benefit for the full salary or 30 days for the half salary. Thus, facility of E.S.I. is better than the Petitioners-Company. (ii) Extended illness benefit :– the period of treatment and cash benefit is available in E.S.I. for 730 days and during the said period the Labour/Workman is paid average daily wages at the rate of 80% during the course of treatment. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 54 However, the Petitioners-Company has not mentioned this extended illness in its treatment, hence, this facility is better under the E.S.I. Act instead of Petitioners-Company. (iii) Disablement benefits:- The Workman is paid 90% of average daily salary under E.S.I. Act, if any labour is disabled from the first day of his work and if the said workman is permanently disabled then he will be paid pension for the whole life as per decision of the Medical Board. Even the person is not liable to remain in work for taking the benefit of the insurance under the E.S.I. Act. However, the company pays compensation to the Workman as per provisions of Workman Compensation Act, 1923. 32. However, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioners-Company that the benefits provided by the Petitioners-Company are as follows:- (i) Medical Benefits:- a. ISWP provides medical benefits to its retired employees, their spouses and to their dependent children (up to 21 years of son and unmarried daughter irrespective of her age) so long they get the facility Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 55 b. In case of disabled employees ISWP provides medical facilities to such employee and his spouse and children free of cost. c. As regards super specialist cases referred to other hospital, ISWP refers to Tata Memorial Hospital, Jamshedpur, TCIL Hospital Jamshedpur, Mercy Hospital Jamshedpur Peerless Hospital, Kolkata CMCH Vellore and Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences Kolkata depending about the severity of cases. d. ISWP provides intermittently free medical check up of its all employees from recognized doctors and health organizations. e. ISWP management is health conscious and has taken first step implementing as “Tobacco Free Zone” (ii) Sickness Leave a. ISWP has a system of accumulation of sick leave upto 60 days in case the employee do not avail the leave during his service he can encash it after his retirement at the rate of his last wage drawn. However, he can avail the accumulated sick leave for his requirement during his service with full wages. b. 91 days sickness leave provided by ESIC reduces the working days to 176 hence loss of manpower (365-52 (Sundays)= 313-42 CL/ Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 56 PL=272-5(NH)=267-91 SL by ESIC) = 176 Working days. (iii) Extended Leave: Similarly, so far as extended leave is concerned, the Petitioners-Company provides leave with full wages till the employee has recovered. (iv) Disablement benefits:- a. ISWP provides employment to one of the dependents of workmen who dies or suffer permanent total disablement as a result of injury on work in that case the workman would be provided company’s accommodation as per his/her eligibility. b. If an employee is medically unfit due to an accident in course of employment he will continue to pay his full wages with Dearness Allowance as IOW/IOD benefit from the date the employee becomes medically unfit till the employee is declared medically fit. c. ISWP provides compensation during the period of disablement which shall continue to be paid on the basis of the last wage drawn immediately after the employee met with the accident. Unfit period counted as special leave. d. Retention and rehabilitation on other suitable jobs. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 57 e. Gives free education to children of such employee in company’s school. (v) Maternity Benefits:- a. Four (04) weeks of extra leave in case of weakness arises out of miscarriage, pregnancy, delivery and premature delivery. b. Maternity benefits paid in advance from the date of expected delivery. c. Leave with wages at full rates for a period of six weeks immediately following the day of miscarriage or medical termination of pregnancy. d. Extra leave with wages at the full rate for a maximum period of one month for illness out of pregnancy, delivery, premature birth. 33. It appears that the Maternity Benefit of the E.S.I. is better than the Petitioners-Company, but it also appears that the Petitioners-Company is giving sufficient leave along with wages to the workers in question. (vi) Compensation in case of death in Harness:- a. ISWP provides employment to one of the dependents of workman who dies or suffer permanent total disablement as a result of injury on work in that case the workman would be provided company’s accommodation as per his/her eligibility. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 58 b. Benefits provided as per workman’s compensation Act are extended as ex-gratia to injury cases resulting in death in an accident during journey from residence to place of work and back within one hour of the start or end of his duty hours provide the accident takes place on the normal route of journey to the place of work. (vii) Rehabilitation allowances:- a. Company provides to its employees as may require by them free of cost artificial limbs, pacemakers, hearing aid, cellular limbo, sorrel belt, special shoes, boot and spinal brace. Such employee is also provided with special leave with full wages and DA during the period of such unfitness b. In case of permanent disablement the employee is continued in service with lighter job with full payment without retrenchment. He is also provided training free of cost to enhance his skill in the new job so to improve the level of wages. c. Medical bonus is provided to female employees and wives and daughters of employee in the company’s hospital free of costs. The company also provides free of cost medical facilities for first confinement of the daughter of an employee. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 59 d. Unemployment of an employee by way of retrenchment does not arise as there is no agreement of retrenchment between the employees Union and the Management. The employees are either re-trained or observed in new units or settled under handsome early separation scheme which inter alia entitles them. Their spouses and family members are provided medical benefits in company’s hospital/TMH till their notional age of superannuation and (viii) Funeral Expenses:- a.On the event of the death of an employee while in service or his/her dependent death an amount of Rs.2,500/- is paid by the company to his legal heir for funeral expenses. Company also provides free transporting facility for carrying the dead body from hospital to residence and residence to cremation place. b.Voluntary scheme of donation for the dependents of the employee in the event of death in service. These employees and voluntarily collected from the employees and given to the dependent of the deceased. 34. It has been held in Employees’ State Insurance Corpn. Versus Distilleries & Chemical Mazdoor Union and Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 604, at Para 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27 as follows:- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 60 “Para 21:- That the appellant has not referred to or mentioned about the important orders that have been passed by the High Court. The said order would show that: "The employer Company had initially opposed the writ petition filed by the employees' Union and had also prayed for vacation of the ex parte interim order dated 19-5-1986 passed by the High Court and/or prayed for suitable modification of the order to safeguard the interest of the respondent Company (employer), in view of the provisions of the Act However, the High Court after hearing the parties, confirmed the interim order dated 19-5-1986 and directed that no deduction shall be made either from the employer or the employees towards the contribution under the ESI Act provided the respondent employer shall pay medical allowance to its workmen. Respondent 2 again applied for modification instead of medical allowance, Respondent 2 was providing/willing to provide medical facilities. The High Court thereafter by order dated 9-3-1988 substituted the words 'payment' and 'allowances' with 'provide" and "facilities'. Therefore with the modification of the initial ex parte order dated 19-5-1986 by subsequent orders dated 17-7- 1987 and 9-3-1988, Respondent 2 was restrained from making contribution to ESIC and was directed to provide medical facilities to the employees. ESIC was not providing medical facilities to the employees inasmuch as the employees themselves Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 61 contended in the writ petition that the hospital of ESIC was more than 12 km away from the factory and even ordinary medical facilities are not available to them and it was therefore, impossible for them to avail of the facilities." Para 22:- It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that under compulsion e of the above order, the employer Company did, in fact, provide medical facilities to the employees as per directions of the High Court and that the employees were also fully satisfied with the medical facilities provided by the employer and have never raised any grievance till date. It is also submitted that the respondent Company has spent large amounts of money in view of the order of the High Court for providing medical facilities and f subsequently also paid medical allowances to the employees. It is stated that if the High Court had not passed the order of injunction, the respondent Company would have contributed to ESIC instead of spending monies on the medical facilities and allowances. In these circumstances, Mr. Anil Divan submitted that it would be unfair and unjust to make the employer to pay contribution towards ESIC since in lieu of the contribution to ESIC, the g employer provided medical facilities as per the directions of the High Court and it would cause extreme and grave hardship to the employer if it is required to pay contribution for the past for no fault of its own. It is also submitted that no party should suffer because of the orders of the court if duly complied with. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 62 Para 23:- We see much force, substance and merit in the above submission of the learned Senior Counsel. Para 24:- It is further pertinent to see that the first interim order was passed by the High Court on 19-5- 1986 and it was modified on the application of Respondent 2 on 17-7-1987 and 9-3-1988. The interim orders were not challenged at all by ESIC and were thus accepted. Despite the pendency of the matter for 17 years, ESIC did not file any reply or counter-affidavit in the writ petition nor filed any application for variation/vacation of the stay as stated in the special leave petition and in fact accepted the interim order. It was, thus, not disputed by ESIC that the employees were not getting any medical facilities from ESIC and they were in fact getting medical facilities from the employer. Para 25:- The High Court observed as follows:- "However, since there was an interim order of this Court dated 19-5-1986 as modified on 17-7- 1987, which directed that no deduction shall be made from the employer or employees towards contribution for ESI, and in fact ESI facility was not availed by the employees of Respondent 3 hence in our opinion it would be unfair if Respondent 3 and its employees are directed to pay contribution for the period when they never got this facility. Learned counsel for Respondent 3 has stated that Respondent 3 was giving medical relief to its employees on its own and no medical benefit was given by ESI Corporation. Under these Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 63 circumstances, we direct that no contribution shall be realised from the employer or employees till today towards ESI contribution, but from today onwards they will start paying ESI contribution and the employees may avail benefit of the ESI scheme. With the above observation, this petition is disposed of finally." Para 26:- In our opinion, the High Court was fully justified in passing the judicious order after considering the equities by directing the employer and the employees to make ESIC contribution for the future i.e. from the date of disposal of the writ petition and should not bear the liability for the past inasmuch as the employees of Respondent 2 have not availed any medical facilities from ESIC and at the same time the employer was providing the medical facilities due to interim order of the High Court. In these circumstances, the order passed by the High Court, in our considered opinion, meets the ends of justice and does not require interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Para 27:- This apart it is important to note that in the past 17 years when the interim order passed by the High Court was enforced, several employees have left/retired and were paid the entire salary without any deduction and, therefore, it will be impossible for the employer to recover the part of the employees' contribution in respect of ESIC from the employees.” 35. It has been held in Zuari Cement Limited Versus Regional Director, Employees’ State Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 64 Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad and Others reported in (2015) 7 SCC 690, at Para 9, as follows:- “As per the Scheme of the Act, the power to grant exemption is a plenary power given to an appropriate Government. It follows that the ESI Court constituted under Section 74 of the Act has no jurisdiction to take up the question of grant of exemption. The Court constituted under Section 74 of the Act cannot decide such matters including the validity of an exemption notification. The order granting or denying exemption is certainly open to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the question of exemption under Section 87 cannot be raised under Section 75 of the Act and the ESI Court constituted under Section 74 of the Act, cannot decide the legality or otherwise of an order relating to exemption passed by the appropriate Government.” 36. It has been held in the order dated 15.07.1992 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3091 of 2012, from last Para of Page 9 till the concluding part, i.e. the end of Page 10, as follows:-. “In the present fact and circumstances, I examine the comparative chart and it appears from the impugned order that the point which has been considered by the competent authority for refusing exemption under Section 87 of the ESI Act has not been taken in the holistic view of the matter. Had it been taken so, the exemption granted for subsequent years to the Petitioner Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 65 could not have been granted. Since the exemption has been granted on similar fact and circumstances, for previous years and the same has not been assailed by the ESIC authority, as such, the officers / competent authorities are not allowed to pass any order as per their sweet will. If the exemption has been granted for other years, it means that those are sufficient for granting exemption and the reason which has been shown in the impugned order is non est for the same and as such, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court is not applicable in the present case. In my opinion, the order impugned cannot sustain in the eyes of law for the reason that, the order was passed on 16.03.2012, 14 days' prior to exemption period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012. The employer were duty bound to provide all social scheme to its employee including the medical facilities. Asking the employer to contribute the same will come under the concept of dual responsibility, as he has already provided facilities to the employees. This Court is aware of the fact that for the same sets of fact, Petitioner-Company has already been granted exemptions for the year 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-17as none of the counsel has placed before this Court, that what happened with regard to 2012-2013 and 2013- 2014, rather a supplementary affidavit has been Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 66 filed by the Petitioner bringing on record with regard to exemption granted from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016, 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017, as such, it would be proper for this Court to quash the impugned order. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed.” 37. So far as judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the State & E.S.I. is concerned, it has been held in the case of Gasket Radiators (P) Ltd. v. ESI Corpn. reported in (1985) 2 SCC 68, at Para 5, 6, 7 as follows:- “Para 5:-In the present case the appellant company which was formed in 1965 and went into production the same year, was exempted from the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Act until the provisions of Chapter V of the Act were enforced in the area where the appellant's factory was situated. However this exemption was withdrawn with effect from May 31, 1969 by a notification of the Government. The appellant company questioned its liability to pay special contribution under Chapter V-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on September 7, 1971 and the present appeal has been filed pursuant to a certificate granted by the High Court under Articles 132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution. Meanwhile Chapter V-A has ceased to have effect on and from July 1, 1973. We are, therefore, concerned in this appeal with Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 67 the question of the payment of special contribution under Chapter V-A by the appellant company for the period, May 31, 1969 to March 26, 1973. The main ground on which the appellant canvasses the correctness of the judgment of the High Court is that the contribution payable under Chapter V-A is a fee and its levy is illegal as the Act does not contemplate the render-ing of any service or the conferment of any benefit to the appellant company or its employees as quid pro quo for the payment. The provisions of Chapter V-A, therefore, according to the learned counsel, are ultra vires. Para 6:- We are afraid that the very approach of the appellant to the problem at issue suffers from a basic defect. The appellant's argument proceeds on the fundamental misconception that the payment of con- tribution directed to be made by the employer under the Employees' State Insurance Act or other similar payment or benefit under various other social welfare legislations must either be labelled as a tax or a fee in order to attain legitimacy or not at all. ………………………………………… ……………..The payment of contribution by an employer towards the premium (what else is it?) of an employee's compulsory insurance under the Employees' State Insurance Act falls directly within Entries 23 and 24 of List III and it is wholly unnecessary to seek justification for it by recourse to Entry 97 of List I or Entry 47 of List III in any circumlocutous fashion. We see no reason to brand or stamp the contribution as a tax or fee in order to seek to legitimise it. Legitimation need not be sought fictionally from Entry 97 of List I or Entry 47 of List III when legitimation is directly derived for the charge from Entries 23 and 24 of List III. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 68 Para 7:- The object of the amendment was to make an equitable distribution of contribution by all employers. It was not considered fair that only employers of those regions to which the benefit provisions were extended should alone make contribution and thereby help to set up a corporation. The benefit provisions will sooner or later be extended to all areas. Therefore, the amendment provides that employers of regions to which the benefit clauses are not extended must also make their contributions though at a lesser rate. ” 38. It has been held in the case of Employees’ State Insurance Corpn. v. Hotel Kalpaka International reported in (1993) 2 SCC 9, at Para 9 as follows:- “Para 9:- The High Court upheld the finding of the Insurance Court that the respondent had failed to comply with the provisions of the Act at the ap-propriate time. However, it proceeded to hold that the respondent- establishment was closed on March 31, 1988. Exhibit P- 3, notice calling upon the respondent to pay the contribution was only on June 23, 1988. Since the scheme was made after the closure of the establishment, the appellant was not justified in proceeding against the respondent. In this view, it dismissed the appeal. It is under these circumstances, the ESI Corporation has come up by way of special leave to appeal.” 39. However, the above judgment is not applicable in view of the fact that the same is mainly related to non-payment of contribution on the ground of closure of the Hotel, whereas the Petitioners are still running the company and hence the above judgment is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 69 40. It has been held in the case of Regional Director, E.S.I Corporation Versus Kerala State Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. And Others reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 148, at Para No. 2 to 5 as follows:- “Para 2:- We are afraid that the two courts misconceived both the object of the Act and the purpose of the insurance scheme under it. The contribution which is levied on the employer in respect of the employees engaged by him directly or through another agency is for the benefit of all workmen in general who are covered by the Act. The contribution is irrespective of the fact whether the employees get or do not get the said benefit. That is also evident from the definition of "insured person" given in Section 2(14) of the Act which reads as follows: "2. Definitions. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,- (14) 'insured person' means a person who is or was an employee in respect of whom contributions are or were payable under this Act and who is, by reason thereof, entitled to any of the benefits provided by this Act. Para 3:-There is thus no quid pro quo between the persons insured and the benefit available under the Act. As regards the finding that the workmen were unidentifiable, what is forgotten is that under the Act, once an establishment comes to be covered by the Act, the employer becomes liable to pay the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 70 contribution in respect of the employees in his employment directly or indirectly. The contribution which had become payable for the relevant period has to be paid even if the employees concerned are no longer in employment. Whether the employees are unidentifiable today or not is, therefore, irrelevant so long as the contribution was liable to be paid on their behalf, when they were in employment. Pare 4:- Shri Sanıpath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised yet another point before us. He contended that the employees were not the employees of the respondent-Company and hence the respondent-Company was not liable to pay the contribution. We are afraid that this contention ignores the definition of the 'employee' given in Section 2(9)(ii) of the Act, which is as follows: "2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,- * * * (9) 'employee' means any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment to which this Act applies and- * * * (ii) who is employed by or through an immediate employer on the premises of the factory or establishment or under the supervision of the principal employer or his agent on work which is ordinarily part of the work of the factory or Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 71 establishment or which is preliminary to the work carried on in or incidental to the purpose of the factory or establishment;". Para 5:- Hence, we find no substance in any of the contentions. A similar point was decided by this Court in a decision in Employees' State Insurance Corpn. v. Hotel Kalpaka international. In view of the said decision, there was no scope for any further arguments in the present case. However, we have dealt with the contentions raised for whatever they were worth. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the decisions of the courts below are set aside. The respondents will pay the costs.” 41. The above judgment is also not applicable as the demand was raised by the E.S.I.C. in respect of the employees, who had long ceased to be employee working in the premises. 42. It has been held in the case of Employees’ State Insurance Corpn. Versus Harrison Malayalam Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1993) 4 SCC 361, at Para 3 as follows:- “Para 3:-We are afraid that the ground given by both the courts is not justifiable. Under the Act, it was the duty of the respondent-Company to get the necessary details of the workmen employed by the contractor at the commencement of the contract since the primary responsibility of payment of the contribution is on the principal employer. On the admitted fact that the respondent-Company had engaged the contractor to execute the work, it was Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 72 also the duty of the respondent-Company to get the temporary identity certificates issued to the workmen as per the provisions of Regulations 12, 14 and 15 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 and to pay the contribution as required by Section 40 of the Act. Since the respondent-Company failed in its obligation, it cannot be heard to say that the workers are unidentifiable. It was within the exclusive knowledge of the respondent-Company as to how many workers were employed by its contractor. If the respondent- Company failed to get the details of the workmen employed by the contractor, it has only itself to thank for its default. Since the workmen in fact were engaged by the contractor to execute the work in question and the respondent-Company had failed to pay the contribution, the appellant-Corporation was entitled to demand the contribution although both the contribution period and the corresponding benefit period had expired. The scheme under the Act for insuring the workmen for conferring on them benefits in case of accident, disablement, sickness, maternity etc. is distinct from the contract of insurance in general. Under the Act, the scheme is more akin to group insurance. The contribution paid entitles the workman insured to the benefit under the Act. However, he does not get any part of the contribution back if during the benefit period, he does not qualify for any of the benefits. The contribution made by him and by his employer is credited to the insurance Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 73 fund created under the Act and it becomes available for others or for himself, during other benefit periods, if he continues in employment. What is more, there is no relation between a contribution made and the benefit availed of. The contribution is uniform for all workmen and is a percentage of the wages earned by them. It has no relation to the risks against which the workman stands statutorily insured. It is for this reason that the Act envisages automatic obligation to pay the contribution once the factory or the establishment is covered by the Act, and the obligation to pay the contribution commences from the date of the application of the Act to such factory or establishment. The obligation ceases only when the Act ceases to apply to the factory/establishment. The obligation to make contribution does not depend upon whether the particular employee or employees cease to be employee/employees after the contribution period and the benefit period expire.” 43. The above judgment is also not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. 44. It has been held in the case of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Versus Employees’ State Insurance Corpn. reported in (1996) 2 SCC 682, at Para 5 and 6 as follows:- “Para 5:-Having regard to the respective contentions, the question that arises for consideration is whether the Act applies to the respective regional offices. Section 2(9) of the Act defines ‘employee’ to mean any person employed for Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 74 wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment to which this Act applies and includes any person employed for wages on any work connected with the administration of the factory or establishment or any part, department or branch thereof or with the purchase of raw materials for, or the distribution or sale of the products of, the factory (emphasis supplied), 'occupier of the factory under Section 2(15) shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Factories Act. "Principal employer" defined in Section 2(17) means "in a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory and includes the managing agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative or a deceased owner or occupier, and where a person has been named as the manager of the factory under the Factories Act, 1948, the person so named; in any establishment under the control of any department of any Government in India, the authority appointed by such Government in this behalf or where no authority is so appointed the Head of the Department; in any other establishment, any person responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment". It would thus be seen that the principal employer is the exclusive owner or occupier of the factory and includes the managing agent of the owner or occupier or where a person has been named as the manager of the factory under the Factories Act the person so named or any other person responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment, etc., is the principal employer. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 75 Having established the regional offices at the respective places, the person who keeps control or is responsible for the supervision of the establishment at the respective regional offices in connection with factory whose finished products are distributed or sold, would be the principal employer for the purpose of the Act. The person appointed for sale or distribution of the products in the regional office is the employee covered under the Act. Para 6:- The object of the Act is to provide certain benefits to employees in e case of sickness, maternity, employment injury and for certain other matters in relation thereto. Section 39 of the Act enjoins upon the employer to make payment of contribution and deduction of the contribution of the employees from their wages at the rates specified in the First Schedule to the Act and to credit the same to their account. The employees covered under the Act in return would receive treatment for sickness, maternity, payment for f employment injury etc. Every human being has the right to live and to feed himself and his dependants. Security of one's own life and livelihood is a precondition for orderliness. Liberty, equality and dignity of the person are intertwined precious rights to every citizen. Article I of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 assures human sensitivity and moral responsibility of every State and that all human beings are born free and g equal in dignity and rights. Article 3 assures everyone the right to life, liberty and Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 76 security of person. Article 25(1) assures that everyone has a right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including, among other things, medical care, and right to security in the event of sickness, disability etc. Article 6 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 assures that every human being h has inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. Article 7(b) recognises the right of everyone for the enjoyment of just and healthy conditions of work which ensures in particular safe and healthy working conditions. The Preamble of the Constitution of India, the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles constituting trinity, assure to every person in a Welfare State social and economic democracy with equality of status and dignity of person. Political democracy without social and economic democracy would always remain unstable. Social democracy must become a way of life in an egalitarian social order. Economic democracy aids consolidation of social stability and smooth working of political democracy. For welfare of the employees, the employer should provide facilities and opportunities to make their life meaningful. The employer must be an equal participant in evolving and implementing welfare schemes. Article 39(e) of the Constitution enjoins upon the State to secure health and strength of the workers and directs that the operation of the law is that the citizens are not forced by economic Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 77 necessity to work under forced labour or unfavourable and unconstitutional conditions of work. It should, therefore, be the duty of the State to consider that welfare measures are implemented effectively and efficaciously. Article 42, therefore, enjoins the State to make provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. Article 47 imposes a duty on the State to improve public health.” 45. The above judgment is also not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the case because in the above case the regional offices of the appellant-company were situated at Sikandrabad in Andhrapradesh and Bengaluru in Karnataka State from the three factories situated in the State of Maharashtra and also in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 46. The judgment passed in the case of Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Versus Narayan Chandra Rajkhowa and Others reported in (1997) 11 SCC 234 is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case because the question to be considered in the above case was whether medical facilities of the Respondent- Company were superior to the Medical Benefits provided under E.S.I. Act. The E.S.I. Court and the Hon’ble High Court had allowed in favour of the employees, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had set aside the order, but remanded the matter back to the E.S.I. Court for determination of this question and Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 78 hence, this issue is not finally settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (ix) Bangalore Turf Club Limited Versus Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and other cases reported in (2014) 9 SCC 657, 47. In the above case reported in (2014) 9 SCC 657, the question for consideration at Para 4 is as follows: “Para 4:-The issues that arise for our consideration and decision are firstly, whether the judgment in Hyderabad Race Club case was correct in holding that a "race club" is an "establishment" for the purposes of the ESI Act? and secondly, whether the appellant Turf Clubs fall within the scope of the definition of the word "shop" as categorised in the notifications? This has been answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 67, 67.1, 67.2, 68 and also in Paragraph 78 and 79, which are as follows:- “Para 67:- In light of the above discussions, the reference is answered in the following terms: Para 67.1:- A "race club" is an "establishment" as rightly held in ESI Corpn. v. Hyderabad Race Club Para 67.2:- The appellant Turf Clubs are duly covered under the term "shop" for the purposes of the ESI Act and notifications issued thereunder. Para 68:- The aforementioned are the only two issues that arise in the matter pertaining to Bangalore Turf Club Ltd., and as a consequence are the only issues dealt with in the present reference. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 79 Para 78:- In fairness to the learned Senior Counsel, he conceded that the ratio of ESI Corpn. v. R.K. Swamy, wherein an advertising agency was held to be a shop for the purposes of the ESI Act by virtue of there existing a systematic commercial activity and a rendering of services taking place, was indeed against the contentions raised herein. It would further be argued that in the given factual matrix, there does not exist any customer-seller relationship, as would be existent in the case of a shop. Para 79:- In light of the fact that the appellant Chit Fund provides for services and in return the foreman receives a commission, this Court is of the considered opinion that the activities of the Chit Fund would be those as would fall under the definition of a "shop" as evolved by this Court.” 48. From perusal of the inspection report dated 02.02.2015 (i.e. Annexure 6) submitted by the Joint Team of Doctors consisting of In-Charge Director, E.S.I. Scheme, Jharkhand and Medical Superintendent, E.S.I.C Hospital, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, it is evident that they themselves had admitted that the hospital of the Petitioners-Company in question is having self-sufficient building inside the company premises and it caters to the needs of 900 family Units of I.S.W.P. Limited and about 200 Family Units of JEMCO Ltd., i.e. the Petitioner-Company. There are 20 regular personnel including Pharmacists, Nurses, Lab Technician etc. and has different O.P.D.s for Medicine, Orthopedics, Obs. & Gyn, Pediatrics, Eye and Dental diseases and also has Pathological Laboratory where routine tests are being conducted. The hospital has got Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 80 medicine store with many types of medicines along with essential and emergency medicines in good quantity. They have also given the figure of O.P.D. patients as 2200-2300 patients per month (Nov-Jan) and they are also having 26 to 31 indoor patients per month. They also admitted that the hospital has tie-ups with T.M.H., Tata Motors Hospital, Tin Plate Hospital, Mercy Hospital, Eye Hospital, MTMH for cancer, where the patients are referred as and when required. They have also noticed and observed that patients are getting cash less treatment at these hospitals. They have further noticed that the patients are also sent for Super specialty treatment to out of State SST hospitals where they get cash less treatment and the bills are being paid by the company. Even the retired employee and his wife gets free treatment. They have given Inspection conclusion that the company is providing cash less treatment to its employees and dependents, which seems at par with the medical facilities provided by the E.S.I.C./E.S.I.S. However, while passing the impugned order (i.e. Annexure-7), the same has not been considered by the learned Secretary to the Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Govt. of Jharkhand. 49. It further reveals that even vide the impugned order (i.e. Annexure-7), the Labour Secretary has not fully compared the facilities provided by the Petitioners- Company at par with facilities provided by the E.S.I. and the Labour Secretary has referred to some of the benefits as has been discussed earlier. Thus, this Court is of the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 81 view that the impugned orders dated 26.05.2022, 05.05.2022, 26.05.2022 and 05.05.2022 passed in W.P.(L) No. 4766 of 2022, W.P.(L) No. 4767 of 2022, W.P.(L) No. 4769 of 2022 and W.P.(L) No. 4770 of 2022 respectively are not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. 50. It further reveals from the submission of the parties that E.S.I. Hospital is situated at a distance of more than Six (06) kilometers from the factory premises, whereas the hospital of the Petitioners-Company is situated inside the factory premises which is suitable for the workman employees. 51. It further reveals that so far as rejection of claim of the Petitioners on the ground of sickness benefit is concerned, the Petitioners-Company provide benefits free of cost, whereas the sickness benefit is allowed by the E.S.I. on contribution made by the employer and employee. 52. It further appears that the so far as rejection of claim of the Petitioners-Company on the ground of better medical facilities is concerned, no objective analysis was done by the Respondents and thus, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. 53. So far as rejection of the claim of the Petitioners-Company on ground No. 5, i.e. Dependency Benefit, as given in the impugned order, is concerned, it is evident that the Petitioners-Company is providing relief much better than the E.S.I. as it is giving compensation in case of death of Workmen in harness and also the benefits like Dependency Benefits Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 82 54. The main grievance is that the Petitioners-Company is giving all benefits, i.e. Medical benefit, Maternity benefit and benefit other schemes to its workmen, however, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Respondent No.3-E.S.I.C have emphasized that instead of treatment of the workman of the Petitioners-Company in their respective hospitals and other recognized hospitals of the Petitioners-Company, the workmen of the Petitioners-Company should be treated in the respective hospitals managed by the E.S.I. as these hospitals give better coverage. 55. 55. It transpires that the Petitioners- Company have also given comparative chart (i.e. Annexure-5) in support of their argument that the facilities of the Petitioners-Company is better than the facilities provided by the E.S.I. 56. This Court finds that the some of the provisions of E.S.I.C. are better and they cover wider range also, but if the same ground is allowed to stand then the hospitals opened and managed by the Petitioners-Company or its associates will become redundant and their machineries will also remain unutilized and get wasted. It is further evident that the hospitals of the Petitioners-Company are running from much earlier before the establishment of hospital of E.S.I.C Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 83 57. It is further evident that the respondents have earlier exempted the Petitioners- Company from the operation of the Act for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016, 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 unless and until the impugned orders, i.e. orders dated 25.05.2022, 05.05.2022, 26.05.2022 and 05.05.2022 (i.e. Annexure-7 in the writ petitions) were passed for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022, 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021, 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 and 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 respectively 58. It is also a fact that the recognized Trade Union or the Trade Union of the Petitioners- Company are the workmen of the Petitioners-Company and they may be under the influence of the Management of the Petitioners-Company. The Union has also given consent to the treatment given in the hospital of the Petitioners-Company and do not desire to be treated elsewhere, except for the hospitals of the Petitioners-Company or its associates. Therefore, the consent of the Union of workmen of the Petitioners-Company may not be the main relevant factor but the relevant factor will be the choice and object of the hospitals. 59. The choice of the concerned Workmen may also be relevant for the treatment. The object of the Employees State Insurance Act is to provide for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 84 maternity and employment injury and to make provision for certain other matters in relation thereto. Later on, the object was amended in the year 1951 and also in the year 1966 and also in the year 1984 and further in the year 1989 and in the year 2010 from time to time by the Central Government. Although, there is no doubt that the E.S.I. Act covers the case of temporary workers and also seasonal workers and also the part time workers and the scope of relief in treatment and other benefits are much wider for the Workmen of all the categories, however, this Court finds that the Employer or any Factory or any Establishment when applies for license for running factory then the State Authorities may make endeavour to inform the Management of the Company/ Factories/ Establishment to get it registered through the E.S.I. at the first instance so that they may not invest money for hospitals for the treatment of their Workman in their establishment. Once an employer establishes its factory or Firm/shop involving more than 20 workers in its factory or work premises of any nature with the establishment of proper hospitals then the said factory may not be compelled to close down its Hospital as also it amounts to wastage of money and redundancy of such hospital. 60. The hospitals are established generally inside the factory premises or near the factory Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 85 premises established by the Petitioners-Company and once the employer withdraws its coverage of health or other benefits including maternity benefits, then smooth running of factory premises may be at stake. The Management is well aware of the difficulties and medical sickness of the workers or their family members and it can issue proper direction for their treatment in its hospitals. They also appoint qualified Doctors and sufficient Para-Medical staff and Nurses for the treatment of its Workmen. 61. However, so far as E.S.I. Hospital is concerned, the Workmen are not aware of the work culture of the hospital and they are also unknown to the environment and even the distance may be a relevant factor for getting the regular treatment in O.P.D. as well as hospitalization. The Management may not be aware of the number of doctors and staffs or working strength of the E.S.I. Hospital. Therefore, this Court finds that there may be disharmony in the convenience of the workmen. 62. This Court is of the view that the existing hospitals of the Petitioners-Company may not be allowed to be discontinued as this will cause undue hardship also to the workmen. 63. This Court is further of the view that choice should also be given to the Employer and Workmen independently to adopt the procedure of treatment of the Workmen in the hospital of the E.S.I. or its associate hospitals, but they cannot be forced and compelled to look for treatment at E.S.I. Hospital. The Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 86 Management may be asked to upgrade the facilities of the hospital at par with E.S.I. Hospitals from time to time and also to revise the beneficial schemes in the light of Government policies, but this is also dependent upon the volume of the workmen and requirement of workmen. 64. This Court is further of the view that Management of the Petitioners-Company may be accountable for maltreatment of the Workmen in its hospital or poor treatment of the workmen in its hospital, but E.S.I. Officials cannot be held accountable. 65. Therefore, the choice should be given to the Workmen by making them aware about the benefits and the facilities granted by the Management Hospitals and E.S.I. Hospitals, but Management may not be forced to close its hospital and Medical Units abruptly. 66. The distance of hospital in some cases may be very crucial and it relates to life and death of the workmen. The Workmen working in the mines or in the Steel Factory and doing hazardous work in any industry, may require medical attention immediately in case of suffering sudden injury or in untoward incident /mishap in the factory. Even the Management and its officers are well aware of the seriousness of the injuries or grievous injuries of such workmen, hence the persons working in such factories may require instant and instantaneous medical attention instead of attention from the Management side and instead of arranging vehicle and doctor at some faraway places, which are unknown to the workmen or their Union or their family members. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 87 67. It is evident that in all the above writ petitions the Petitioners-Company are not charging any contribution from its employees regarding medical treatment and the Petitioners-Company are providing free of cost to its employees the entire medical expenses, which is borne by the Management of the Petitioners-Company, whereas the treatment in E.S.I. will be possible only after taking contribution from the Petitioners-Company. Thus, the monetary benefit is there for the workmen as no contribution is deducted from their salary for their treatment as well as treatment of their family members including the dependent father, mother, brother, sister, daughter, however, the employee will get treatment in E.S.I. only after deduction of contribution. However, neither the Petitioners nor the E.S.I. nor the State Government have pointed out as to what contribution were being charged by the E.S.I. for the treatment of the Workmen of the Petitioners-Company. 68. Even the Petitioners have not shown about the medical expenses borne by the Management towards the treatment of its Workmen, however, there is no doubt about the fact that from the year 2014, the Petitioners- Company had not charged any contribution from the workmen for their treatment and the treatment of their respective dependents. 69. This Court does not deny the fact that the role of E.S.I. is also of public service and E.S.I. has opened several hospitals across the country for the treatment of the workmen, however, no such figure has been given as to how many person they have treated. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 88 70. From the comparative chart (Annexure-5), It is further evident that apart from giving treatment in the hospital of the Petitioners-Company as well as Tata Main Hospital, the Petitioners-Company can refer the cases of injured workmen or his family members to Christian Medical College, Vellore, Apollo Hospital Groups, Peerless Hospital, Kolkata, Shankar Netralaya, Chennai, Tata Cancer Hospital, Mumbai, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences, Meharbai Tata Memorial Hospital, Jamshedpur etc. and this facility does not appear to be available in ESI and the employees or his dependents and his family members may have to move out in other States on their own by reference and not in the care of their employer. 71. Moreover, in case of any untoward incident the Management is more accountable with respect to treatment of the Workman compared to E.S.I., as the latter will not be held accountable by the Workman or his family members. 72. Thus, it is also seen that regarding some other facilities, the benefits provided by the Petitioners- Company is atleast at par with the E.S.I. if not better than the E.S.I. Hospitals, but in many areas the facilities of the Hospitals of the Petitioners-Company are at par with the E.S.I. Hospitals 73. Accordingly, in view of the discussions made above, the impugned Orders dated 26.05.2022, 05.05.2022, 26.05.2022 and 05.05.2022, challenged in W.P.(L) No. 4766 of 2022, W.P.(L) No. 4767 of 2022, Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30893 ) 89 W.P.(L) No. 4769 of 2022 and W.P.(L) No. 4770 of 2022 respectively are set aside and the Petitioners-Company are exempted from making contribution under Section 87 of the Act, 1948 for the period, from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022, from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021, from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 and from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 . However, it will be open to the Workmen or its Union to enrol with Employees State Insurance Corporation, if they so desire. 74. However, for the purpose of future reference, this Court is of the view that instead of unilateral decision by the State Government or its authorities, both the sides may sit together and on the basis of comparison of treatments in their respective hospitals the option may be given to the employer and employees of the Petitioners-Company, particularly to the workmen to exercise their discretion in taking treatment from the E.S.I. Hospital or Employers’ Hospital by fixing any cut of date. 75. Thus, all the writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(L) No. 4766 of 2022, W.P.(L) No. 4767 of 2022, W.P.(L) No. 4769 of 2022 and W.P.(L) No. 4770 of 2022 are allowed with the aforesaid directions and observations. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 24.07.2025 A.F.R./s.m.