Back
HIMA KOHLI, RAJESH BINDAL
E. S. I. Corporation, Rep. by the Regional Director – Appellant
Versus
Endocrinology and Immunology Lab – Respondent
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 tha
Coverage of establishments under Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 can be expanded by State Notification.
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 applicability of the Employees’ State Insurance Act is contingent upon the establishment being classified as a 'factory' with at least 10 employees, as defined under Section 2(12).
An establishment with fewer than ten employees does not fall under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, and arbitrary orders without due process violate principles of natural justice.
The applicability of the Employees’ State Insurance Act is contingent on the factory having the requisite number of employees, and Section 1(6) only applies to those already covered, not to new appli....
The Sale Depot of the corporation is not covered under the Employees’ State Insurance Act due to the absence of manufacturing activities and failure to meet employee thresholds.
Cold storage facilities are classified as 'factories' under the Employees State Insurance Act, as they involve a manufacturing process, necessitating ESI contributions regardless of the number of emp....
The definition of 'hospital' under the EPF Act includes establishments solely providing diagnostic services, affirming the application of the Act despite the absence of inpatient facilities.
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
