The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the prescribed procedure and the availability of an alternate remedy under S. 75 for resolving disputes under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.

( 1 ) ON Preliminary Hearing the 1st petitioner is a Public Limitrd company and is registered under the companies Act. It has its registered office at Bangalore. The 2nd Petitioner is said to be the Managing Director of the Company. The Company carries on businesss of manufacturing watches. It is gaid, that besides having regular employees under its rolls, the Company also takes apprentices and trains them in various fields of activities connected with the industry. The provisions of the employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (the Act) are attracted to this concern. Employees working therein are required to be insured in the manner provided by the Act. For this purpose both the employer and the employee are required to make contributions and to pay the same to the Employees' state Insurance Corporation (Corporation ). Rates are specified in this behalf in the Schedule to the Act. Under S. 40 of the Act it is the duty of the principal employer to pay both the employer and the employees contribution. Guide lines, as to the manner how it should be done, are provided for in the Act. Whenever the Corporation feels that contributions, as required by the Act, were not being made by the employer, it could, by an order, determine the amount of contribution payable by the factory or establishment as provided under S. 45a of the Act. Exercising that power the Regional director of the Corporation (1st respondent herein) passed an order (vide ex-A) determining a sum of Rs. 14,670 83 pajse as the amount of contribution payable in respect of some employees said to be working in the concern for certain periods specified in the earlier notices issued by the Coporation to this concern (vide Ex-Cl ). The Company's objection to the payment of contribution in the case of those persons, in whose cases such contributions had been demanded by the Corporation, was that they ware not employees but were only apprentices, and therefore, the provisions of the Act are not attracted to their cases and no contributions are required to be made. In, this petition the Company is challenging the order of the 1st respondent, ex-A.

( 2 ) NOTICES were issued re. Rule. The 1st respondent is represented through its Counsel. The learned Counsel for the petitioners and the 1st respondent were not merely heard in the matter of issuing Rule but also on merits as they had agreed to argue the matter on merits also.

( 3 ) COUNSEL for the petitioners argued that in so far as these apprentices were concerned they used to be taken by the company on apprenticeship under an agreement executed by each of them as per proforma Ex-B. His contention is that apprentices, thus taken for training, were not employees within the meaning of the provision of S. 2 (9) of the Act, and therefore, no contributions, as provided under the Act, are required to be made in their cases. He argued that in demanding contribution even in such cases the Corporation had acted without juridiction and contrary to law. He further pleaded that the 1st respondent had not held any enquiry; had not followed the provisions of S. 44 (2) of the Act before resorting to Sec. 45 of the Act; and that this order was in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and that the quantum of contribution had been determined without any basis and arbitrarily. He submitted that the 1st respondent, in passing the impugned order, had completely ignored the principles enunciated by the Supreme court in E. S. I. Corpn. v. Tata Eng. and Co. , AIR 1976 SC. 66. (Tata Engineering and Co. , case ).

( 4 ) ON behalf of the 1st respondent statement of objections have been filed and the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that these persons, who are called as only apprentices by the petitioner, were in reality regular employees of the company. He also argued that the impugned order was in accordance with law and that the petition was not maintainable, in that, the petitioner had an alternate remedy under Sec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document