Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
PRAVIN S.PATIL
Employees state Insurance Corporation, through it's Deputy Director, Nagpur – Appellant
Versus
Rani Sati Industries, Through its Partner Anurag, P. Agrawal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRAVIN S. PATIL , J.
Heard.
2. By way of present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order passed by the Employees Insurance Court (Industrial Court) Amravati dated 04.02.2011 passed in Employees State Insurance Case No.1/2000, whereby it is declared that the establishment of the respondent is not covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short ‘The ESI Act”) and, therefore, they are not responsible and liable to pay any contribution required under the provisions of ESI Act.
3. The appellant Employees State Insurance Corporation has challenged the said judgment and order of the Insurance Court on the ground that learned Insurance Court failed to consider the specific material in terms of Visit Note dated 23.10.1997, which was proved by the appellant Corporation, whereby it is clear that the employees working in the respondent unit were more than 10 persons and, therefore, the unit run by the respondent comes under the definition of ‘Factory’. Hence, on this count, preferred the present appeal before this Court.
4. This Court after hearing the appellant, by order dated 28.06.2011, admitted the appeal by framing the following substant
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 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....
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....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'employee' under Sec. 2(9) of the ESI Act and the provisions related to the payment of contribution and ....
The definition of 'employee' under the Employees' State Insurance Act includes those employed through immediate employers, negating the need for direct employment by the principal employer for covera....
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 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
