SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HIMA KOHLI, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
E.S.I. Corporation, Rep. by the Regional Director – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Endocrinology and Immunology Lab – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3368 of 2012
Decided On : 02-08-2023
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – Sections 75 and 77 read with Section 1(4) – Coverage of establishment – Pathological Laboratory – Establishment of respondent will not be covered under provisions of Section 1(4) of the Act as it will not fall within definition of a “factory”, since no manufacturing process is carried on therein – It is not even case of appellant – In terms of notification dated 06.09.2007, medical institutions including diagnostic and pathological laboratories, where 20 or more persons were employed, were covered – In case at hand, respondent is running pathological laboratory and would be covered under the Act in terms of Notification dated 06.09.2007, issued by Government of Kerala – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 8, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Order dated 21.08.2008 passed by the High Court of Kerala has been challenged by the Corporation1 by which appeal filed by the respondent was allowed. It was held that provisions of Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 will be applicable to the respondent establishment w.e.f. 06.09.2007 and not from 22.11.2002.
Findings of Court:
If pathological laboratories were already covered under the Act, as is sought to be urged by Corporation, there was no occasion to issue such a notification. This fact clearly establishes that even as per the understanding of Corporation, pathological laboratories were not covered under the Act prior to that date.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. Order dated 21.08.2008 passed by the High Court of Kerala has been challenged by the Corporation1 [The Employees State Insurance Corporation] by which the appeal2 [Ins. App. No.4 of 2008(A)] filed by the respondent was allowed. It was held that the provisions of the Act3 [The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter ‘the Act’)] will be applicable to the respondent establishment w.e.f. 06.09.2007 and not from 22.11.2002.4 [Wrongly typed in the impugned order as 24.11.2002]
2. Briefly stated, as per the facts available on record, the respondent establishment is a pathological laboratory. Inspection of the premises of the respondent was carried out by the Inspector on 01.04.1999. Having found that there were 19 employees working in the establishment, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent. The respondent establishment challenged coverage of the establishment by filing an application under Sections 75 and 77 of the Act before the Employees’ Insurance Court. The Court vide order dated 19.04.2007, passed in I.C. No. 13/2003 declared that the establishment of the respondent is a ‘shop’ as per Section 1(5) of the Act and the provisions of the Act would extend to the respondent w.e.f. 22.11.2002. A review application5 [M.P. No. 159/2007] filed by the respondent before the E.S.I. Court, was dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2007. The orders of the E.S.I. Court were challenged by the respondent by filing an appeal before the High Court which was allowed vide impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the High Court is not in conformity with the law as the respondent establishment will be covered under the provisions of the Act in terms of the notification dated 27.05.1976 issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred under the Act. In terms of the aforesaid notification, if 10 or more persons are employed in an establishment on any day in the preceding 12 months which included a “shop” it will be covered under the provisions of the Act. The respondent establishment being a shop, was clearly covered. After inspection, a notice was issued to the respondent for coverage w.e.f. 01.04.1999. However, in view of the Circular dated 22.11.2002, issued by the Corporation for the coverage of pathological laboratories and diagnostic centres, the establishment was covered from 22.11.2002. It is stated that the findings of the High Court that the respondent establishment shall be covered under the Act w.e.f. 06.09.2007, is erroneous.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the High Court. Notification dated 27.05.1976, issued by the Government of Kerala, does not cover the establishment of the kind that the respondent has, which is pathological laboratory. By no stretch of imagination can it be termed as a shop, where merely buying and selling activities take place, and not the kind of work executed by experts engaged by the respondent. In fact, medical institutions which included nursing homes, diagnostic centres and pathological laboratories employing 20 or more persons were brought under the ambit of the Act vide notification6 [Dated 06.09.2007] issued by the Government of Kerala. The order passed by the High Court is in line with the said notification. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on the record.
6. The short question which requires consideration by this Court is, the date from which the respondent establishment, which is undisputedly carrying on the business of a pathological laboratory, will be covered under the Act.
7. (i) Section 1(4) of the Act provides that the Act shall apply to all factories (including factories belonging to the Government) other than s
Coverage of establishments under Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 can be expanded by State Notification.
The interpretation of statutory notifications and the principle of giving full effect to every word in the notification were central to the judgment.
The Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 applies to educational institutions, affirming their classification as 'establishments' to provide social security benefits to employees, regardless of the ins....
Educational institutions qualify as 'establishments' under the Employees State Insurance Act, ensuring employee social security benefits, regardless of their non-commercial status.
The functional integrality of the establishments justified their clubbing and coverage under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.
The voluntary contribution under the EPF Act does not automatically encompass an establishment under the ESI Act, and the Act cannot be extended to establishments without a notification from the appr....
The definition of 'shop' encompasses various commercial activities, not limited to direct sales of goods.
The court established that the presence of more than 10 employees, including Hamals, qualifies the establishment under the applicability of the Employees' State Insurance Act.
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.