Back
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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. argument against applicability of esi act at akola depot (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. findings on applicability of esi provisions (Para 14 , 15 , 18 , 36) |
| 4. observation on evidence and judicial reasoning (Para 30 , 32 , 35) |
| 5. conclusion and order delivered (Para 39 , 40) |
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 aut
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 functional integrality of the establishments justified their clubbing and coverage under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.
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 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 court established that the presence of more than 10 employees, including Hamals, qualifies the establishment under the applicability of the Employees' State Insurance 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).
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
