Statutory protection under sickness benefit provisions cannot override certified standing orders on deemed termination for unauthorised absence.

Section 73 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 protects an employee from dismissal, discharge, reduction or other punishment while in receipt of sickness benefit or within the statutory protection period, but that protection cannot be extended beyond the language enacted. The Supreme Court held that a certified Standing Order deeming service terminated after eight consecutive working days of unauthorised absence could still operate where the statutory protection did not clearly apply. A liberal construction of a welfare provision must remain within its text and cannot be used to override the employer's rights under the Standing Orders. The employer's action was therefore not illegal on the basis of Section 73, and the award restoring the workman was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 73 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 prevented the employer from treating the employee's absence as leading to termination of service under the certified Standing Orders after sickness benefit had been granted for the relevant period.

Analysis: Section 73 protects an employee from dismissal, discharge, reduction or other punishment during the period when the employee is in receipt of sickness benefit or is otherwise within the statutory period described in the section. The certified Standing Order provided that absence without leave for eight consecutive working days would be deemed to terminate service unless the explanation was satisfactory. The statutory protection could not be expanded beyond the language used merely because the Act is social welfare legislation. Liberal construction must still operate within the words actually enacted, and where those words do not clearly support the broader construction, the court cannot read such a restriction into the employer's contractual or certified standing order rights.

Conclusion: Section 73 did not bar the employer from acting under Standing Order 8(ii), and the employer's action was not rendered illegal on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the award restoring the workman was set aside, with the employer's stand upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A social welfare provision must be construed liberally, but only within the limits of its language, and Section 73 does not prohibit action under a certified standing order for deemed termination arising from unauthorised absence outside the statutory protection period.

---