Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PRAVIN S.PATIL
Maharashtra State Handlooms Corporation Limited – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
PRAVIN S . PATIL, J.
1. Heard.
2. The present appeal is preferred by Maharashtra State Handlooms Corporation Limited, challenging the judgment and order dated 18.01.2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Akola, in ESIC Application No.3/1988, whereby it is held that the unit run by the appellant Corporation at the Akola Sale Depot is covered under the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the ESI Act of 1948”), and by determining the amount of contribution payable for the relevant period in respect of the employees working at the Akola Sale Depot was directed to deposit the amount as per order of respondent dated 15.04.1988.
3. Before adverting to the merits of the matter, the certain facts, which are necessary to be recorded in the matter, are as under:
The appellant is a statutory authority, and its affairs are managed by its Board of Directors. The head office of the Corporation is situat
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 main legal point established is that the apprentices appointed under Certified Standing Orders of a factory are exempted from the purview of the Employees'' State Insurance Act, 1948.
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....
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....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the engagement in blending, packing, and processing of coffee for more than seven months in a year disqualifies a factory from being considere....
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).
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....
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.
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
Listen Article