Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)

Consumer Education & Research Centre ... vs Union Of India & Others on 27 January, 1995

"In Consumer Education & Research Center & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1995) 3 SCC 42] a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that the jurisprudence of personhood or philosophy of the right to life envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution enlarges its sweep to encompass human personality in its full blossom with invigorated health which is a wealth to the workmen to earn his livelihood, to sustain the dignity of person and to live a life with dignity and equality. The expression 'life' assured in Article 21 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 living, hygienic conditions in the workplace and leisure facilities and opportunities to eliminate sickness and physical disability of the workmen. Health of the workmen enables him to enjoy the fruits of his labour, to keep him physically fit and mentally alert. Medical facilities, therefore, is a fundamental and human right to protect his health. In that case health insurance, while in service or after retirement was held to 7 O.A.Nos. 260/00450 of 2024 be a fundamental right and even private industries are enjoined to provide health insurance to the workman."
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 220 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Vincent Panikurlangara vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 March, 1987

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vincent Vs. Union of India, (1987) 2 SCC 165, have held that the employer cannot deprive its employee of the full reimbursement of the amount on the premise of non-recognition of the hospital, Indraprastha Apollo Hospital. The Supreme Court approved the decision of the High Court of Madras in W.P.No.4980 of 2006 in the following words:
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 103 - M Rangnath - Full Document
1