Back
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Hindustan Unilever Limited – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Sub Regional Office (Salem) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. definition and status of seasonal factories. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding the applicability of esi act. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. interpretation of seasonal factory definitions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. need for further review by a larger bench. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. request for administrative order on reconsideration. (Para 15) |
ORDER :
2. The appellant before this Court is a Company which has a factory presently engaged in the manufacturing of coffee as also its blending and packing and is known as Hindustan Unilever Limited. The question before this Court is whether appellant is liable to make its contribution under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called "the ESI Act") or not?
[Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to a factory or establishment belonging to or under the control of the Government whose employees are otherwise in receipt of benefits substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under this Act]."
Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel then relied upon Section 2
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....
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 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....
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.
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.
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
