SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1973 Supreme(Mad) 183

T.RAMAPRASADA RAO
Mettur Beardsell Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Employees’ State Insurance’ Corporation of India, represented by The Regional Director, Tamil Nadu – Respondent


Habibullah Badsha, Advocate, for Petitioner (in W.P. Nos. 2807 of 1971 and 2808 of 1971)
M. R Narayanaswami and K. R. Vijayakumar, Advocates, for Petitioner (in W.P. No. 3238 of 1971).
M.R. Narayanaswami, Advocate, for Petitioner (in W.P. No. 39 of 1972.)
M. R. Narayanaswamy and N. Balasubramanian, Advocates, for Petitioner (in W.P. Nos. 48 of 1972 and 2220 of 1972.)
S. M. Ali Mohammed, for Central Government Standing Counsel, on behalf of Respondents (in W.P. Nos. 2807 and 2808 of 1971 and 2220 of 1972 and Respondent in W.P. Nos. 3238 of 1971, 39 and 48 of 1972).

Order.-

These writ petitions are connected; for the purpose of narrating the facts, it is enough to notice the facts in Writ Petition No. 3238 of 1971. The petitioner is a private limited company having its factory at Madhavaram within the limits of the City of Madras. But it has an independent administrative office at No. 52/53, Jehangir Street, Madras-1. The petitioner’s case is that there are about 67 workers exclusively working in the factory of the petitioner-company and there are a few others numbering about 30 as on date working in the administrative office of the company in the address as above. The respondent as the statutory functionary under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 was of the view that by reason of the amendment of the word ‘employee’ in section 2 (9) of the Act, the employees of the petitioner, even though working in the administrative office as above, would squarely come within the meaning of the word “employee” as defined in section 2 (9) and therefore the respondent called upon the petitioner to bring in the personnel working in the administrative office also within the purview and mischief of the Act in the matter of the contribution payable by an em



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top