Back
HIMA KOHLI, RAJESH BINDAL
J. P. Lights India – Appellant
Versus
Regional Director E. S. I. Corporation, Bangalore – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's challenges regarding esi applicability (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. substantial questions of law from high court appeal (Para 4) |
| 3. definition of factory and manufacturing process (Para 6 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. legal definitions under esi and factories act (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. appeal dismissed, no infirmity found (Para 11) |
ORDER :
1. The appellant, a sole proprietorship firm, is aggrieved by the judgment impugned dated 26th August, 2010, passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, whereby the appeal1[M.F.A. No. 6876 of 2003] preferred by it against the order dated 29th September, 2003, passed by the Employees State Insurance Court2[For short ‘ESI Court’], Bangalore, has been dismissed.
2. The appellant-firm had approached the ESI Court, by filing applications under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act3[For short ‘ESI Act’], 1948, assailing the notices of recovery and orders passed by the respondent-Corporation, taking a plea that it had never employed more than eleven employees and was not using power and, therefore, the provisions of the ESI Act were not applicable to it.
3. After evidence was led before the ESI Court and issues were framed, the plea of the appella
A factory is classified as seasonal under the ESI Act if its predominant activity is seasonal, and it is exempt from ESI applicability if it employs fewer than ten workers.
Point of Law : Supreme Court considered the scope of notification of establishments under section 1(5) of the 'ESI Act'.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'seasonal factory' under Section 2 (19-A) of the ESI Act, particularly in relation to the manufacturing processes....
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 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).
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....
Point of law : Partnership Act - In the enquiry, sufficient opportunity was not given to the respondent to produce documents or to adduce evidence. Hence, the question raised by the appellant regardi....
The interpretation of Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 in determining the number of employees in a factory.
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.
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
