ARIJIT PASAYAT, TARUN CHATTERJEE
E. S. I. C. – Appellant
Versus
C. C. Santhakumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.—All these appeals involve identical questions and are, therefore, taken up together for disposal. Some of the appeals are by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short the Corporation) while some others are by the employers. The Corporation questions correctness of the judgment rendered by the full Bench of the Kerala High Court while the employers question correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
2. Basic question before the two High Courts were as follows:-
Proviso to Section 77(1A)(b) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short the Act) provided limitation of 5 years for claiming contribution and restricts the Corporations right from recovering the arrears of contribution as arrears of land revenue under Section 45 (B) in pursuance of an order under Section 45(A) of the Act. The Corporation claimed ESI Contributions as arrears from various employers. Assailing those orders, some of the employers moved the Employees State Insurance Court (in short the E.S.I. Court) in the State of Kerala. The employers in the State of Tamil Nadu, however, filed writ petitions before the Madras High Court. Th
Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. F. Fibre Bangalore (P) Ltd.
Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India
Collector & Ors. v. P. Mangamma & Ors.
Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. E.S.I. Corporation
State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha
Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.