An establishment engaged in a manufacturing process specified in Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 is excluded from the notification extending the Act to establishments employing 10 or more persons.

Headnote:
EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948 - SECTION 1(5) - NOTIFICATION EXTENDING ACT TO ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYING 10 OR MORE PERSONS - PRINTING PRESS NOT COVERED - PRINTING PRESS IS AN ESTABLISHMENT ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING PROCESS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 2(12) OF THE ACT - EXCLUDED FROM NOTIFICATION.
Fact of the Case:

The Employees' State Insurance Corporation demanded contributions from the respondent printing press, claiming it was covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The press objected, arguing that it employed less than 20 persons and was not a "factory" under the Act. The Corporation contended that the Act had been extended to establishments employing 10 or more persons by a notification under Section 1(5) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the printing press was not covered by the Act. It found that the press was an establishment engaged in a manufacturing process specified in Section 2(12) of the Act, and was therefore excluded from the notification extending the Act to establishments employing 10 or more persons.
Issues: Whether the printing press was covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 1(5) of the Act and the notification extending the Act to establishments employing 10 or more persons. It held that the printing press was an establishment engaged in a manufacturing process specified in Section 2(12) of the Act, and was therefore excluded from the notification. The court also criticized the authorities for not carefully reading the relevant provisions of the law before initiating action against the press.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation.

This appeal filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Gauhati under Section 82 (2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.2.82 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court, Gaubati.

2. The facts of the case are very brief. The Employees" State Insurance Corporation at Gauhati (hereinafter 'the Corporation) demanded contribution from the respondent-Shri Krishna Press of Gauhati on the ground that it was covered by the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The demand was made for contributions amounting to Rs. 4,730/- and Rs. 1.521/- with interest. Tha respondent -Shri Krishna Press (hereinafter 'the Employer') objected to the demand on the ground that its printing press was not covered by the provisions of the Act. The case of the employer was that the provisions of the Act are applicable to a factory only which has been defined in clause (12) of Section 2 of the Act. In order to be a "factory" within the meaning of the said clause, "twenty or more persons" should be employed whereas it employed not more than 10 persons. As such, it was not a "factory" and the provisions of the Act did not apply.

3. The case of the Corporation was that though the Act bad been applied at the first instance to a factory, power has been given to the appropriate government under sub-section (5) of Section 1 to apply the provisions of the Act to any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial agricultural or otherwise, and the Government of Assam by notification made under the said sub-section extended the Act. later alia, to establishments engaging ten or more persons. According to the E.S.I. Corporation, the establishment in question was covered by item 1 of the Notification. To properly appreciate the submissions, let us consider sub-section (5) of Section, 1 which reads:-

"(5). The appropriate Government may, in consultation with the Corporation and where the appropriate Government is a State Government, with the approval of the Central Government, after giving six months' notice of its intention of so doing by notification in the Official Gazette, extend the provisions of this Act or any of them,, to any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise".

4. In exercise of the powers conferred by the aforesaid subsection, the Government of Assam by Notification No. GLR. 385/74/18 dated 24th December, 1974 (published in the Assam Gazette, January 22, 1975) in consultation with the Employees' State Insurance Corporation and with the approval of the Central Government, gave notice to extend the provisions of the Act to certain classes of establishments specified in the Schedule annexed thereto with effect from 1st August, 1975. The final Notification was thereafter published vide Notification No., GLR. 385/74/55 dated 22.7.1975. By the said Notification dated 22.7.1975 the provisions of the Act were made applicable, inter alia, to the following categories of establishments:

"1. Any premises including the precincts thereof whereon ten or more persons but in any case less then twenty persons are employed for wages on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of powers but excluding mine subject to the operation of Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952) of a Railway running shed or an establishment which is exclusively engaged in one or more of the manufacturing processes specified in clause (12) of Section 2 of the Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948)".

5. The case of the Corporation is that the printing press of the employers falls within the description of the establishments given in the aforesaid item 1 of the said notification. The Employees' State Insurance Court at Gauhati held that the Act does not apply to a factory which employs lass than 29 persons and quashed the de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document