( 1 ) SINCE the issue involved in both the writ petitions and the facts are common, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioner-Employees State insurance Corporation obtained a rule from this Court calling upon the respondents to show-cause as to why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued calling for the records and quashing the orders dated 4/4/1995 passed in. D. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1995 on the file of Chairman and Presiding Officer, industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, visakhapatnam.

( 3 ) THE Inspector of petitioner-Corporation on 26-7-1991 inspected the organization of the second respondent to verify whether the provisions of the Employees State Insurance act, 1948 (for short the Act) are applicable and found that more than 20 workers are employed in the second respondent organization. Accordingly, he addressed a letter to the second respondent on 4/9/1991 requesting it to comply with the provisions of the Act. Since the second respondent failed to comply with the provisions of the Act, the inspector again on 13/5/1992 visited the organization of the second respondent and on verification of the records found that the said organization came into the purview of the Act with effect from 22/7/1989. In spite of the same, as the second respondent did not comply with the provisions of the Act for more than 2 years, the Inspector of the corporation issued a notice to the second respondent on 14/10/1993 and 4/11/1993 to deduct the contributions from the wages of its employees. Aggrieved by the same, the employees. e. the Respondents 3 to 6 in w. P. No. 22808 of 1995 and Respondents 3 to 5 in W. P. No. 22809 of 1995 raised Industrial disputes in. D. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1995 respectively. The petitioner-Corporation questioned the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to go into the question whether the second respondent organization is covered by the employees Provident Fund Insurance Act or not in view of the remedy available under section 75 (1) (g) of the Act and the jurisdiction of all the Courts is ousted to decide such disputes in view of the bar contained under section 75 (3) of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner-Corporation contended before the labour Court that the industrial disputes raised by the employees before it are not maintainable. The Tribunal by the impugned awards held that the second respondent organization constitute three

different legal personalities having independent dealings and geographically they can be treated as they separate independent units for all purposes under the Act. It was held that since the second respondent was proved to be a different distinct one carrying on separate business in a separate building, the second respondent has no case to demand contribution and the provisions of the Act have no application to it. Further, on the point of jurisdiction, it was held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to enquire any dispute under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes act. It was observed that the dispute before it is that the amount is sought to be deducted from the salaries of the workmen by the management and therefore, the management must be directed to pay entire salary due to the workmen and while deciding the said dispute, it can go into the matter incidentally to find out whether the provisions of the Act are applicable to the organization of the second respondent. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the applications and directed the petitioner-Corporation not to demand contribution from the second respondent organization.

( 4 ) HEARD the learned standing counsel for the petitioner-Corporation and the counsel for the second respondent. In spite of service of notice on the respondents-employees, they have not chosen to put up appearance.

( 5 ) THE point that arises for consideration is

"whether the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the aspect of coverage of an establishment under the provisions of the Employees State in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document