Delegated legislation under ESI law cannot be postponed by court order; a direction to consider is not substantive relief.

A court cannot postpone the operation of a delegated legislative notification under the Employees' State Insurance Act merely because interim relief had earlier been granted. The amended ESI regime therefore remained operative according to its terms. However, a direction to the Corporation to "consider" the matter did not amount to a substantive adjudication granting exemption or waiving contributions; it only required an application of mind and a lawful decision on the merits. The Corporation was therefore required to hear the concerned parties and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court had granted a substantive direction postponing the operation of the amended Employees' State Insurance regime and, if not, whether the Corporation was required to reconsider the matter in accordance with law.

Analysis: The challenge arose from a writ order and the appellate judgment that were said to have the effect of making the notification operate prospectively. The Court noted that the applicable amendment was a delegated legislative measure under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, and that a court cannot postpone the date of operation of such a notification merely because interim relief had earlier been granted. At the same time, the Court held that the learned Single Judge had not issued a positive command granting exemption or waiving contributions; the direction was only to 'consider' the matter. A direction to consider requires the authority to apply its mind and decide in accordance with law, but does not itself determine entitlement on merits.

Conclusion: The High Court's order was not treated as a substantive adjudication granting relief on the merits, and the Corporation was directed to hear the concerned parties and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

---