Tag Archives: Bill No 375 of 2019

Innocent MPs Vs. Wily bureaucrats – Episode 3

Excerpts from the letter sent to the authorities on the unlawful and unwarranted inclusion of the phrase “Nursing and Para-medical” and the word “Gazetted” in Clause 24 (8) of the Code on Social Security, 2019 (Bill No. 375 of 2019) without any explanation for it anywhere in the Bill.

——————————–

2. I submit that although the aforesaid Clause 24 (8) has been modelled on the existing Sec. 17 (3) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, the inclusion of (1) the phrase “Nursing and Para-medical” and (2) the word “Gazetted” therein is unwarranted either by operation of any law or because of any practical problem which could arise in the enforcement of the existing law. The simple fact is that this proposition   under Clause 24 (8) is purely unwarranted and has not been made keeping public interest in view.  There had been no in-depth study for making such a modification in the existing procedure permitted in the  ESI Act. The proposition made, now,  through the Clause 24 (8) of the Code on Social Security is arbitrary and hence unlawul.

3. The original ESI Act did not exempt even the medical posts. All appointments to posts corresponding to Class I and Class II posts under the Central Government were required to be made only in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. The then Sec. 17 (3), i.e., the provision that was in force upto 26.01.1985, read as under:

“Every appointment to posts corresponding to Class I and Class II posts under the Central Government shall be made in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission”

4. As the classification of the posts based on Class was changed as a matter of policy by the Central Government, the subsequent amendment of 1984 reflected that policy decision and the amended provision which came into effect from 27.01.1985 read as under:

“Every appointment to posts corresponding to group A and group B posts under the Central Government shall be made in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission”.

5. The provisions of Sec. 17 (3) of the ESI Act, as quoted supra, were in accordance with the Art. 320 (3) (a) of the Constitution of India read with the Proviso thereto and the provisions in the UPSC (EFC) Regulations, 1958 (As amended).

Unwarranted amendment in 1989 and later regrets:

6. It was only in the year 1988 that a very big lobby that had been canvassing for a long time for exempting the medical posts from the purview of the UPSC, succeeded in its venture, for reasons which were specious. The UPSC had also accepted the proposal for it. The resultant amendment of 1989 saw the said Sec. 17 (3) of the ESI Act modified as under:

“Every appointment to posts (other than medical posts) corresponding to group A and group B posts under the Central Government shall be made in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission”.

It was later found that the reasons recorded earlier for amending the Sec. 17 (3) thus, to exempt the medical posts from the purview of the UPSC, were improper and wrong and the amendment unnecessary. The then Director General regretted later the amendment of 1989. There had been various unwarranted pressure on the honest Director Generals thereafter.

Unwarranted amendment in 2009 and later regrets:

7. Similar misadventure was there, again, twenty years later, in 2009. That was about the establishment and running of medical colleges by the ESI Corporation. And a Bill (Bill No 66-C of 2009) was tabled on the Lok Sabha to amend, inter alia, Sec. 59-B in the ESI Act to pave way for establishing such medical colleges by the ESI Corporation. A strong lobby, had been canvassing from the year 2007 onwards, through the Standing Committee and the ESI Corporation, for constructing large number of medical colleges. But after frittering away thousands of crores of the fund of the organisation, the same bodies recorded their regret, in the year 2015, and confessed that the ESI Corporation did not have core competency and that the objective of Sec. 59-B was unlikely to be met. The Minutes of the meeting of the Corporation on 05.01.2015 would testify to this fact. The ESIC was gifting away, subsequently, the mammoth buildings constructed at a huge cost to State Governments.

8. Taking wrong decisions first, making herculean efforts to amend the Act by informing, misinforming and disinforming the Parliament, and then regretting the decision after realising the wrongs committed earlier did not remain a one-time phenomenon. It has become a recurring feature as could be seen from the contents of the present Bill No. 375 of 2019 in the Lok Sabha.

Unwarranted meddling, again, in 2019:

9.  Now, ten years later, in 2019, another attempt has been made to yield to another lobby. The proposition for the inclusion of the phrase “Nursing and Para-medical” and the word “Gazetted” therein has no legitimate justification at all. It is the indicator of yielding to such a lobby. And the regrets will be coming later. This is not only in violations of the provisions in the UPSC (EFC) Regulations, 1958 (as amended up to 07.10.2009) but also not necessary, in public interest.

10. I, therefore, submit that it is only right and proper to take action at least at this stage to prevent such a defective Clause from becoming law by deleting the said word and phrase from the proposed Clause 24 (8) of the Code on Social Security, 2019,  and, consequently,  take  action to prepare the said Clause identically on the lines of the existing Sec. 17 (3) of the ESI Act, 1948.

11. It is a fact that the Bill No. 375 of 2019 does not explain how and why the phrase “Nursing and Para-medical” and the word “Gazetted” have been added all of a sudden in Clause 24 (8) of the Code on Social Security, 2019 without explaining the need for it, either in the ‘Statement of Objects and  Reasons’ or even in the ‘Note on Clauses’.

12. The ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons’ is totally silent on this issue. The ‘Note on Clauses’ contain only a laconic observation that “Clause 24 of the Bill seeks to provide appointment of Principal Officers and other staff of the Corporation”. It is very clear that the Legislature is just ill-treated by the Executive.

UPSC (EFC) Regulations violated by the ESIC:

13. It is essential for the Executive to convince the Legislature about the necessity that had arisen, from the perspective of the Executive, to make such additions. But the Executive has deliberately omitted doing so, in the matter of including the Nursing and Para-medical staff in the said Clause 24 (8). The bureaucrats have inserted these additions silently and without inviting the particular attention of the legislators for such an addition, especially when the Recruitment Regulations for the post of Nurses have been amended only in July 2019, in accordance with the law on the subject and, accordingly, conceding the role of the UPSC in the matter of appointment and promotion of Nurses in Group B and A.

14. In fact, the proposal for such an amendment was sent by the ESI Corporation, after inviting comments from the stakeholders two years ago, on 04.05.2017, and the UPSC, has given its concurrence to those amendments as per its letter F. No. 3/12 (8) /2019 – RR dated 05.07.2019 and has, thereby, assumed jurisdiction over the appointment and promotion of Nursing personnel in the ESI Corporation. The salient features of those amendments were:

a. The posts in the Nursing cadre were re-designated and re-classified as Nursing Officer ( Group B ), Senior Nursing Officer (Group B) and Assistant Nursing Superintendent (Group A).

b. The recruitment process in respect of all these posts would go to the UPSC.

c. The DPC meeting would be conducted by the UPSC and a member of the UPSC would be the Chairman of the DPC.

15. When all these actions are facts on record, there should be convincing reason advanced by the ESIC in the ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons’ and the ‘Notes on Clauses’ accompanying the Bill No. 375 of 2019, for deliberately violating the provisions of the UPSC (EFC) Regulations, 1958 and trying to usurp the powers of the UPSC. But the Bill concerned is totally silent on the issue.

Legislative Policy, a pre-requisite for Legislative Drafting, kept secret:

16. The Parliamentarians are entitled to know who made what changes in this Clause and who advised whom to insert the phrase “Nursing and Para-medical” and the word “Gazetted” in the Clause 24 (8) of the Bill No. 375 of 2019. The desire of the bureaucracy to keep this information secret is unlawful and impermissible. The legislature should always be, invariably, informed of the specific reasons behind the deletion of existing words and phrases and insertion of these new words and phrases in the already existing provisions. The legislative policy behind such a proposition should be made known to the Legislature beforehand. That has not been done in this case.

17. The procedure of drafting legislations require the rulers to entrust the Drafting Team with the ‘legislative policy’. Mr. Justice. M. Jagannadha Rao, Chairman of the 17th Law Commission of India, has written a paper on Legislative Drafting. He says, “The draftsman is not the author of the legislative policy, he merely tries to transform the legislative policy into words. The legislative policy is made by the political executive which belongs to the political party which is ruling the legislature or by the monarch who reigns over the country. The draftsman must, therefore, digest the legislative policy fully before he produces the instrument of legislation which can achieve the legislative purpose”. The issue here, with the impugned Code, is why the Executive has not made the concerned ‘legislative policy’ also known not only to the public but even to the Legislature. The Executive has not informed the Legislature about the direction in which the draftsman was advised to make a move, while drafting the Bill No. 375 of 2019. And that is unlawful.

The strange insertion of the word ‘Gazetted’:

18. It is submitted that the word ‘Gazetted’ inserted in Cl. 24 (6) of the Bill No. 375 of 2019 restricts the jurisdiction of the UPSC in respect of Groups B posts, which jurisdiction is now available under the existing Sec. 17 (3) of the ESI Act. The proposed law is that “Every appointment to posts..….corresponding to group A and group B Gazetted posts under the Central Government shall be made in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission”. This inclusion of the word ‘Gazetted’ in Clause 24 (8) in the Bill concerned is not at all necessary when the UPSC had already assumed jurisdiction over all the Group B Non-Gazetted posts also, in the Stenographic cadre as well as in the Nursing cadre. Moreover, no explanation to justify such an inclusion has been given either in the “Statement of Objects and Reasons” or in the “Notes on Clauses” accompanying the Bill. The draftsman did not think it necessary to adduce reasons and convince the law-makers for such an inclusion. His action and inaction are improper and unlawful and is a serious misconduct.

Inaction of the Ministry of Law:

19. Moreover, it is shocking that the Legislative wing of the Ministry of Law & Justice had not considered it necessary to probe into the legality or otherwise of this kind of silent insertion of the phrase “Nursing and Para-medical” in the Bill No. 375 of 2019, especially when the legislation, the Code on Social Security, 2019 is not a new one but one intended only to replace the ESI Act, 1948 and 8 others. Besides, the Ministry of Law ought to have made the Ministry of Labour & Employment explain its stand, about the absence of explanations to such commissions and omissions in the ‘Note on Clauses’ and the ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons’ which accompanied the Bill.

Observations of the Apex Court:

20. It is submitted that the Clause 24 (8) of the Code on Social Security, 2019 deals with the policy pertaining to public employment. Such an important policy cannot be evolved without there being a transparent legislative policy. It is only when the Bill in question is compared with the aforesaid legislative policy, one would be able to know whether the draftsman had performed his role right or had made such commissions and omissions in the draft Code to sabotage the policy.

21. It would be appropriate to recall in the context what the Hon’ble Apex Court had said, in Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. The International Airport Authority of India and others (04.05.1979). Drawing support from the proposition laid down in M/s. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd, Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under: “This proposition would hold good in all cases of dealing by the Government with the public, where the interest sought to be protected is a privilege. It must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or …., the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant.”

Prayer

22. The phrase “Nursing and Para-medical” and the word ‘Gazetted’  inserted in the Clause 24 (8) of the Bill No. 375 of 2019 would adversely affect the chances of employment of the aspiring candidates of the nation in the ESI Corporation, if and when the Bill becomes law, without proper modifications. It is unnecessary and totally unwarranted to take the jurisdiction of the UPSC away from the Group B posts in the ESIC. It is not in public interest too.

23. I, therefore, request you to kindly re-examine the issue and set things right in the interest of the nation.

Leave a comment

Filed under Labour Code 2020

Innocent MPs Vs. Wily Bureaucrats – Episode 2

To
1. Hon’ble Speaker,
House of the People (Lok Sabha),
17, Parliament House,
New Delhi 110011

2. Mr. Bhartruhan Mahtab,
Hon’ble M.P. & Chairman,
Standing Committee of Parliament on Labour,
South Block,
New Delhi – 110011

(Through Mr. Kulvinder Singh, Deputy Secretary, Parliament of India,
House of the People. Email: comm.labour-lss@sansad.nic.in)

Sub: Appointment of Consultants and Specialists in ESI Corporation – – insertion of Second Proviso to Clause 24 (7) (a) of the Bill No. 375 of 2019 – legislative process – bureaucrats continue to cheat the Parliament – representation – submitted.

Ref: 1. Bill No. 66-C of 2009 placed before the Lower House of the Parliament as The ESI (Amendment) Bill, 2009 on 30.07.2009.
2. Report dated 09.12.2009 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour.
3. Record (Minutes) of the proceedings of the Lok Sabha on 03.05.2010.
4. Bill No. 66-C of 2009 as passed by the House of the People on 03.05.2010 titled The ESI (Amendment) Bill, 2010.
5. CAG Report No. 40 of 2015 on Special Audit of Medical Education Projects in the ESI Corporation.
6. Draft Code on Social Security circulated in the MOL&E Circular No. Z-13025/13/2015-LRC dated 17.09.2019.
7. The Code on Social Security, 2019, placed as Bill No. 375 of 2019 before the House of the People (Lok Sabha).

Sir,

1. I submit this representation to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour (hereinafter referred to as the PSCL) with a request to kindly examine in depth the Second Proviso to Clause No. 24 (7) (a) of the Bill on The Code on Social Security, 2019 (Bill No. 375 of 2019 of the Lok Sabha) which has been worded in a nebulous and ambiguous manner.

2. This Clause is shown to have been included for the purpose of appointing Specialists and Consultants in the ESIC Hospitals for better delivery of Super Speciality Services. But this clause which is the exact reproduction of the Second Proviso to the Sec. 17 (2) (a) of the ESI Act, 1948 did not serve that purpose. In fact the Second Proviso to the Sec. 17 (2) (a) of the ESI Act, 1948, was inserted in the ESI Act, ten years ago, with ulterior motive, through an amendment vide Bill No. 66-C of 2009 of the Lok Sabha, and it had been the cause of various scandals unearthed later by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and some of them recorded in Para 2.3, Para 2.4 and Para 2.5 of his Report No. 40 of 2015 (Page 8 to 12 – Special Audit of Medical Education Projects).

3. I submit that such scandals became possible because of (a) the insertion of that provision as Second Proviso to Sec. 17 (2) (a) of the ESI Act, 1948, instead of its appropriate place as the Second Proviso to Sec. 17 (3) of the said Act and (b) the absence of insertion of definition to the terms ‘Specialists’ and ‘Consultants’ in the ESI Act along with the aforesaid amendment.

4. I therefore submit that the present Cl. 24 (7) (a) of the Bill No. 375 of 2019, as it is at present, would definitely become the cause of further abuse as had happened in the past decade in the ESI Corporation, unless the PSCL inquires the authorities of the facts behind it and causes modification of it. What is required to be done is to insert this Clause in its appropriate place below the Cl. 24 (8) of the Bil No. 375 of 2019 and to incorporate, in the Bill itself, the definitions for the terms ‘Specialists’ and ‘Consultants’. I, therefore, request that the Committee may kindly bestow more attention for evaluating this provision, in the light of facts submitted in this representation and the Appendices.

5. The Second Proviso to the Clause No. 24 (7) (a) of the Bill No. 375 of 2019 which is, now, under the scrutiny of the PSCL at present reads as under:

“Provided further that this sub-section shall not apply to appointment of consultants and specialists in various fields appointed on contract basis.”

6. The second proviso to the Clause 5 of the Bill No. 66-C of 2009, introduced ten years ago to make amendment to Sec. 17 (2) (a) of the ESI Act,1948, which was scrutinized by the then PSCL, read as under:

“Provided further that this sub-section shall not apply to appointment of consultants and specialists in various fields appointed on contract basis.”

7. The PSCL had examined this provision in depth then and did not approve it the way it approved many of the other genuine provisions in the Bill No. 66-C of 2009. Yet the procedure had been manipulated, the observations of the PSCL overlooked and the defective Clause 5 of the Bill became law on 03.05.2010 enabling the persons in power to indulge in various scandals.

8. I submit that this Clause, which had been inserted in through the Bill No. 66-C of 2009, was not an innocuous provision. It was inserted in a pre-meditated manner with a view to indulge in various scandals. Instead of placing it as the second proviso to Sec. 17 (3) of the ESI Act, the bureaucrats connived to insert it as the second proviso to Sec. 17 (2) (a) of the ESI Act. (Please see Appendix B). Their apparent intention was (i) to appoint anyone as Specialist or Consultant for any non-medical purpose, (ii) to ignore the proper method of recruitment, (iii) to pay such an appointee extraordinary remuneration without any guideline being anywhere and (iv) to keep those appointees beyond the pale of all kinds of disciplinary provisions. I request that this provision need not again be made a part of law through the proposed Code on Social Security, 2019 vide the Bill No. 375 of 2019 which is now under the effective consideration of the PSCL.

Appendix B

9. It is essential for the PSCL to know the fact that when the Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, suspected the bona fides of the provision in the Bill No. 66-C of 2019 and came forward with valid suggestion during the meeting of the Committee of Secretaries held on 06.01.2009 to prevent the abuse of this provision, the Director General, ESI Corporation chipped in and clarified that it was only an enabling provision and that the rules would be framed later. His defence was endorsed by the Cabinet Secretary who was present in the meeting and observed that the issue might be examined “at the time of framing of rules.” But it is a pity that the promises of the Director General of the ESI Corporation and the Cabinet Secretary were not kept. Consequently, no rules under the provisions of Subordinate Legislation have ever been framed regarding the appointment of Specialists and Consultants till date, although many had been appointed through questionable means in the organization leading to the objection by the CAG too.

10. I, therefore, request that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour may be pleased

a. to dispense with this provision altogether and direct the ESI Corporation to follow the procedure adopted in the AIIMS, JIPMER, etc., for appointment of Specialists and Consultants in medical fields, or

b. to advise the authorities concerned to formulate the provision properly to enable them to appoint only the Specialists and Consultants with medical qualifications to meet the requirement of the ESI Corporation in providing super speciality medical benefit to the ailing beneficiaries in the ESIC run medical institutions;

c. to advise the authorities to incorporate suitable definition for the terms ‘Specialists’ and ‘Consultants’ under Clause 2 of the Bill under consideration; and

d. to shift this impugned proviso from the present position as the Second Proviso to Clause 24 (7) (a) of the Bill on the Code on Social Security, 2019 ( Bill No. 375 of 2019) and to insert the same as the Second Proviso to Clause 24 (8) of the said Bill to prevent abuse of the provision once again by making extraordinary payments to the people who are appointed as Specialists and Consultants. (Please see Appendix C)

11. I submit herewith a Write-up containing the relevant details pertaining to the abuse of law-making-process in the year 2009 and 2010 to insert the Second Proviso under Sec. 17 (2) (a) of the ESI Act. I believe that the PSCL may find the precedent and the details thereof useful to arrive at a decision, as deemed fit, on the unwarranted Proviso which has been inserted as Clause No. 24 (7) (a) of the Bill,

Yours faithfully,

Encl: Appendices A, B & C.

Appendix C

Leave a comment

Filed under Labour Code 2020