Back
2009(6) Supreme 686
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and Ashok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Employees State Insurance Corporation — Appellant
versus
Bhakra Beas Management Board & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8335 of 2004
Decided on : 17-09-2009
Facts of the Case :
1. A notice was issued by appellant herein in the instant case for making employer’s contribution towards the employees state insurance.
Respondent No.1 Board challenged notice before Employees State Insurance Court, Delhi.The Employees State Insurance Court decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondent No. 1Board and directed the respondent No. 1 to pay its contribution towards the employees insurance. Appeal thereagainst was Allowed by High Court holding that the sub-stations of respondent No. 1 Board were not factories within the meaning of the Act.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Neither the workers of the respondent No. 1 nor any one of them in representative capacity were impleaded either before the Employees State Insurance Court or before High Court. This was in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as that of the Employees State Insurance Court was set aside and matter was remanded to Employees State Insurance Court for deciding the same after impleading the workers of the respondent No. 1 Board or their union in a representative capacity.
Result : Appeal allowed.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.11.2002 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi whereby the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 herein has been allowed and it has been declared that the respondent No. 1 Board is not liable to make any contribution towards the Employees State Insurance in respect of the impugned demand.
3. The facts in detail have been given in the impugned judgment and hence we need not repeat the same herein.
4. It appears that the appellant had issued a notice under Section 45-A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter for short ‘the Act’) for making employer’s contribution towards the employees state insurance. The respondent No.1 Board challenged that notice before the Employees State Insurance Court, Delhi. It appears that neither the workers concerned of the respondent No. 1 Board nor any one of them in representative capacity were made parties in the petition under Section 75 of the Act before the Employees State Insurance Court or before the High Court.
5. The Employees State Insurance Court decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondent No. 1 Board and directed the respondent No. 1 to pay its contribution towards the employees insurance. gainst the said order of the Employees State Insurance Court, the respondent No. 1-Board filed an appeal under Section 82 of the Act before the High Court and the High Court has allowed the said appeal holding that the sub-stations of the respondent No. 1 Board are not factories within the meaning of the Act. Hence this appeal by special leave.
6. This Court has recently held in the case of Fertilizer & Chemicals Tranvancore Ltd. Vs. Regional Director, ESIC & Ors. 1 2009 (11)SCALE 766 as under :
“5. It may be noted that in its petition before the Employees Insurance Court, the appellant herein only impleaded the Employees State Insurance Corporation and the District Collectors of Alleppey, Palaghat and Cannanore as the respondents but did not implead even a single workman as a respondent.
6. Labour statutes are meant for the benefit of the workmen. Hence, ordinarily in all cases under labour statutes the workmen, or at least some of them in a representative capacity, or the trade-union representing the concerned workmen must be made a party. Hence, in our opinion the appellant (petitioner before the Employees Insurance Court) should have impleaded atleast some of the persons concerned, as respondents.
7. The case of the appellant was that, in fact, none of the concerned persons was its employee and it was difficult to identify them.
8. In this connection we may refer to Section 75(1)(a) of the Act which states that if any question or dispute arises as to whether any person is an employee of the employer concerned, or whether the employer is liable to pay the employer’s contribution towards the said persons’ insurance, that is a matter that has to be decided by the Employees Insurance Court. Hence, in our opinion, the concerned person has to be heard before a determination is made against him that he is not an employee of the employer concerned.
9. The rules of natural justice require that if any adverse order is made against any party, he/she must be heard. Thus if a determination is given by the Employees Insurance Court that the concerned persons are not the employees of the petitioner, and that determination is given even without hearing the concerned persons, it will be clearly against the rules of natural justice.
10. It may be seen that Section 75 of the Act does not mention who will be the parties before the Insurance Court. Since the determination by the Insurance Court is a quasi-judicial determination, natural justice requires that any party which may be adversely affected or may suffer civil consequences by such determination, must be heard before passing any order by the authority/court.
11. In our opinion, wherever any petition is filed by an e
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
