JUDEGMENT SUMMARY:
The Employees State Insurance vs Union of India
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
20th January 2022
JUDGES:
D.Y Chandrachud, J.
B.M. Trivedi, J.
PARTIES:
The Employees State Insurance Corporation (Appellant)
Union of India & Ors. (Respondent)
SUBJECT
The judgment deals with the promotion of Assistant Professor of ESIC Medical College under DACP Scheme. The question here was whetherDACP Scheme or ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 is applicable for the Assistant Professors.
AN OVERVIEW
1. The appellant, ESIC, a statutory body was constituted under the Employees State Insurance Act 1948. The recruitment and promotion of its teaching staff are governed by Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) Recruitment Regulations 2015.According to these regulations, a minimum of five years of qualifying service as an Assistant Professor is required for promotion to Associate Professor.
2. The Respondents had joined ESIC Medical College, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru as Assistant Professors between 2014 to 2016 These Respondents were promoted as Associate professor on completion of their 2 years of tenure as laid down by under Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme. DACP Scheme was issued by the Central Government in 2008.
3. The proceeding of the promotion was institutedbeforethe Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru. CAT had relied on the appellant’s Counsel’s submission and held that ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 were not relevant for adjudication of this matter.
4. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka against the promotion of the respondents which was dismissed by a divisional bench on the following grounds:
a. The respondent was recruited under DACP Scheme when ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 was not enacted.
b. The DACP Scheme has statutory effect under Section 17 of the ESIC Act
c. Appellants Counsel had conceded that the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 was not applicable for the Respondents and DACP Scheme would be implanted.
5. The Appellant then moved to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 has precedence over DACP Scheme and the concession by the Counsel of the appellant is not binding on either the court or client. The judgment of theDivision Bench of the Karnataka High Court was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Constitution of India
- Article 313- Laws in force initially before the commencement of the Constitution and are applicable to any public service or any post that continued to exist after the commencement of service or a post under the Union or State should remain to be in force subjected to the limitation that they are uniform with the provisions of the Constitution, unless otherwise provided for by the Constitution.
Employees State Insurance Act 1948:
- Section 17(2): Enables the ESIC to deviate from the conditions of service applicable to Central Government employees, subject to prior approval from the Central Government
- Section 97(3): Empowers ESIC to frame regulations that are deemed to have the same effect as statutory provisions
ISSUES
Following are the issues that werebefore Supreme Court:
- Whether the 2015 ESIC Recruitment Regulations take precedence over the DACP Scheme?
- Whether or not the concession by the Counsel of the appellant can stand in the way of the appellant supporting the correct position of law before the Court?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
- ESIC was an autonomous body which had power to frame its own regulation as stated by ESI Act. A Constitution Bench in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, held that the regulations framed by statutory authorities have the same effect of law and bind the statutory authorities and the same stood for ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015.
- The DACP Scheme was applicable to employees of the Ministries and Departments of the Central Government as was stated in the text of DCAP itself and had not application to statutory body like ESIC. ESIC Recruitment Regulations, 2008 had the effect of statutory legislation and could have been swept over by the executive instruction such as DACP Scheme according to the ruling of Court in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal.
- The DCAP Scheme was applicable to the staffs of the ECI from the day it came into effect in 2008. The Section 17 of the ESI Act provided that ESIC could depart from the rules and orders of the Centre if they obtain the approval of the Central Government. The preamble to the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 explicitly stated that it was approved by the Central Government. According to the Article 313, when a law remains in force only to the extent that consistent with the provisions existing legislation or a new legislation relating to the same subject is not enacted. Therefore, with the coming into effect of ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015, DACP scheme was not longer applicable to the teaching staffs of ESIC.
- According to the notions of professional responsibility, lawyer follows the instruction of the client and does not have the power to substitute the judgment of the client. In Odisha v. Pramod Kumar Sahoo, a two-judge bench had held that the concession given by a Counsel that was contrary to the statute was not binding on the state. Further it could not estop the client against law. Therefore, the concession of the Counsel for the appellant before the CAT did not preclude the proceedings of the Court
CONCLUSION
The Supreme help that the subject of Respondent’s promotion came under the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 instead of the DACP scheme. The seniority list of the Teaching Cadre of ESIC was revised. The Respondent’s claimthat DCAP was applicable on their matter on the ground that the same was stated before CAT was rejected. The Supreme court also pointed out that neither client nor Court are bound by the Lawyer’s Admission.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
