Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. On behalf of the ESI Corporation, it is also argued that the ESI Act is a piece of social welfare legislation, which guarantees among other welfare measures, the maintenance of proper health of the employees and their right to life including right to livelihood as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, the same cannot militate against Article 30(1) of the Constitution. In short, the argument is that at the most, if at all the impugned notification is considered as a restriction to the fundamental right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, it can only be considered as a reasonable restriction, which can be imposed for upholding the solemn right of right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, it is permissible and legally valid.

32. In paragraph 24 of Consumer Education (supra), by relying on Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal  Ins.Appl.35/2012 & connected cases Corporation [AIR 1986 SC 180], it was held that no person can live without the means of living i.e., means of livelihood, and if the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. It was held that the expression `life' assured in Article 21 of the Constitution does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right to livelihood, better standard of life, hygienic conditions in work place and leisure. In paragraph 26 of the Consumer Education (supra), it was held that the health and strength of the worker is an integral facet of right to life and denial thereof denudes the workman the finer facets of life violating Article 21.

33. Therefore, evidently it has to be found that a social welfare legislation like the ESI Act and its provisions are meant for ensuring a better standard of life, health and  Ins.Appl.35/2012 & connected cases welfare to the employees whereby upholding the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. No doubt, when the right of the minorities guaranteed under Article 30 (1) is compared to the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 will be on a higher pedestal than the right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. When a legislation has been brought by the State to ensure the livelihood within the meaning of right to life and for ensuring health and better welfare to the employees for ensuring protection to the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, it cannot be said that such a law will abridge the fundamental right of the minorities guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

36. From what is discussed above, it is evident that the provisions of the ESI Act are meant for the welfare measures of the employees, primarily aiming at their health  Ins.Appl.35/2012 & connected cases and that of their family members, with a view to aiding them to live a decent and healthy life within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. Such regulations have no direct impact on the administration and management of the minority educational institutions within the meaning of right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The said legislation or the impugned notification, which extends the provisions of the said legislation to CBSE/ICSE schools being run by the minorities, cannot be treated as an abridgment within the meaning of Article 13(2), so as to violate the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30(1). Under the protective cover of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, a minority educational institution cannot be heard to say that they have unfettered right even to violate the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. A social welfare legislation as the ESI Act and the impugned notification which extends the same even to such minority educational institutions having affiliation with  Ins.Appl.35/2012 & connected cases the CBSE/ICSE, are meant for upholding the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, the same cannot be styled to be an abridgment within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the Constitution.