1993 JTR(SC) 954
1995 2 LLJ 17 ; 1994 1 LLN 565 ; 1994 1 SCC 268 ; 1994 SCC(L&S) 516
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.)
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN.
Versus
KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPN. EMPLOYEES UNION (CITU), KANNUR, DIST. KANNUR, KERALA AND OTHERS.
Civil Appeal Nos. 5527-28 of 1993 {Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 5194-95 of 1993}, decided on October 11, 1993
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136, Art.226
POWER TO INTERPRET CONSTITUTION—VESTS IN THE JUDGE - INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTION - CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME EXCLUDES SCOPE OF ABSOLUTE POWER IN ANY INDIVIDUAL - “RULE OF LAW”
-the concern of the judicial must be to faithfully interpret the Constitutional provisions according to its true scope and intent because that alone can enhance public confidence in the judicial system-the concern of the judicial must be to faithfully interpret the Constitutional provisions according to its true scope and intent because that alone can enhance public confidence in the judicial system
-the concern of the judicial must be to faithfully interpret the Constitutional provisions according to its true scope and intent because that alone can enhance public confidence in the judicial system-the concern of the judicial must be to faithfully interpret the Constitutional provisions according to its true scope and intent because that alone can enhance public confidence in the judicial system
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. The Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 were amended by the notification dated March 27, 1992 with effect from April 1, 1992. By the amendment the wage-ceiling for coverage under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (the Act) was enhanced from Rs 1600 to Rs 3000 per month. The amendment was challenged before the High Court on various grounds. While upholding the validity of the amendment a learned Single Judge of the High Court directed that the notification should be enforced with effect from November 1, 1992 instead of April 1, 1992. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error in postponing the date of the operation of the notification. The notification, amending the Rules, was a legislative act. The amendment of the Rules being a delegated legislation, the High Court could not have interfered with the date of operation of the notification.
4. We set aside the direction given by the High Court regarding the postponement of the enforcement of the notification and we direct that the notification dated March 27, 1992 shall be operative from April 1, 1992.
5. We, however, leave it open to the respondents to approach the appropriate Government, if so advised, under the Act for grant of exemption or for any other relief to which they may be entitled. We allow the appeals in the above terms. No costs.
For Citation : AIR 1994 SC 268 = 1993 AIR SCW 4101 = 1993 (4) SCC 441.