SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 186

K.RAMASWAMY, S.SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B.PATTANAIK
Kirloskar Brothers – Appellant
Versus
Employees State Insurance Corporation – Respondent


ORDER

In these appeals short question that arises for consideration is : Whether the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the Act ) would apply to the regional offices of the appellant at Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh and Bangalore in Karnataka States. The appellant had established its registered office at Poona for sale and distribution of its products from three factories-one situated at Kirloskarvadi, second at Karad in State of Maharashtra and the third one at Deewas in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Admittedly factories situated in Maharashtra are not covered under the Act. They set up regional offices at several places. The Governments of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka have applied the provisions of Section 2(g) of the Act to the aforesaid regional offices situated at Secunderabad and Bangalore and the respondent had issued notice under Section 3(g) of the Act calling upon them to contribute their share of the health insurance of the workmen working in the respective regional offices. Disputing the liability, the appellant filed application before Insurance Court under Section 75 of the Act. The Court had held that the appellant s regional offices are covered under th


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top