Back
SUBHASH CHAND
Rajesh Kumar Sharma, son of Shri Sampat Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Employees' State Insurance Corporation through its Director – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Chand, J.
This miscellaneous appeal has been directed under section 82(2) of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 on behalf of the appellant/petitioner Rajesh Kumar Sharma against the Employees State Insurance Corporations and others dissatisfied with the order dated 17.06.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer of Labour Court-cum-Employees Insurance Court, Ranchi in E.S.I Case No. 10 of 2002 whereby the appellant/petitioner’s case instituted under section 75 of Employees State Insurance Act challenging the order dated 02.06.2000 under section 45A of Employees State Insurance Act has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts leading to this miscellaneous appeal are that appellant/petitioner Rajesh Kumar Sharma has filed an application under section 75(1)(a)(g) of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 before the Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Patna after creation of Jharkhand State filed the same application before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi with these averments that the petitioner Rajesh Kumar Sharma is the proprietor of restaurant at Main Road, Ranchi. The said restaurant is run by the name and style Marwari Kalewalaya. The snacks, meals are prepared and a
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.
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....
Cooperation with authorities and production of genuine documents are essential in disputing establishment coverage under the E.S.I. Act.
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 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....
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
