Back
A. S. SUPEHIA
Employee State Insurance Corporation – Appellant
Versus
H. K Acharya and Company – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The present appeal emanates from the judgment and award dated 30.08.2019 passed by the Employee State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad in E.S.I. Application No.31 of 2009, filed under section 82 of the Employee State Insurance Corporation Act, 1948 (in short “the ESI Act”), by which the court below has partly allowed the application holding that the action of the Employee State Insurance Corporation of issuing C-11 notice to the opponent-Firm under the ESI Act, thereby covering it under the provisions of the ESI Act w.e.f. 01.01.2007 is illegal and unreasonable and also held that the ad hoc assessment notice dated 06.04.2009 issued by the appellate- Corporation under section 45 of the ESI Act against the Firm is illegal and unreasonable.
FACTS :
2. The opponent-Firm filed ESI Application No.31 of 2009 along with interim application before the Employee State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad under section 75 of the ESI Act challenging the order dated 19.04.2007. The appellant-Corporation filed a written statement at Exh.8 and Exh.9, producing a Visit Note dated 03.04.2007, of the Inspector mentioning the details of the salary sheet and attendance sheet of 34 employees working in the f
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 court established that employment status must be supported by concrete evidence, and inferences drawn without such evidence are insufficient to impose liability under the Employees’ State Insuran....
Point of Law : Supreme Court considered the scope of notification of establishments under section 1(5) of the 'ESI Act'.
The functional integrality of the establishments justified their clubbing and coverage under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.
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 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 on the factory having the requisite number of employees, and Section 1(6) only applies to those already covered, not to new appli....
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 ....
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
