Back
R. VIJAYAKUMAR
Sri Harikrishna Paper (P) Limited, Dindigul District, Represented by its Director – Appellant
Versus
E. S. I. Corporation, Madurai, Represented by its Joint/Assistant Director – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 82(2) of the Employees'' State Insurance Act 1948, to set aside the order dated 19.09.2017 passed by the ESI court (Labour Court), Madurai in E.S.I.O.P.Nos.18 and 17 of 2009 and allow the ESIOPs filed by the appellants.)
Common Judgment:
Both these appeals have been filed by the Management challenging the order passed by the E.S.I.Court, Madurai in ESIOP.Nos.17 and 18 of 2009 wherein the order the E.S.I.Corporation under Section 45-A of the E.S.I.Act demanding contribution for the apprentices appointed under the Certified Standing Orders of the factory have been confirmed.
2. Factual Background:
(i).In CMA(MD).No.921 of 2018, the appellant is admittedly a factory and they are covered under E.S.I.Act. An inspection was conducted on 13.03.2008 and a show cause notice was issued on 26.06.2008 why the contribution should not be recovered from the employer towards apprentice wages and trainee wages.
(ii). A Form C-18 notice was issued on 26.06.2008 in which a sum of Rs.48,901/- was demanded as contribution towards apprentice wages and trainee wages. After affording opportunity to the m
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that apprentice appointed under the standing orders of the establishment are excluded from the definition of employee under Section 2 (9) of the ES....
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....
Trainees under certified standing orders are excluded from the definition of 'employee' under the EPF Act unless they perform the same work as regular employees.
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 in the judgment is that the engagement in blending, packing, and processing of coffee for more than seven months in a year disqualifies a factory from being considere....
A factory is classified as seasonal under the ESI Act if its predominant activity is seasonal, and it is exempt from ESI applicability if it employs fewer than ten workers.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'seasonal factory' under Section 2 (19-A) of the ESI Act, particularly in relation to the manufacturing processes....
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
