Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. Sree Sudha, J.
The Employees State Insurance Corporation, Hyd. - Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Bulchand Company, Hyderabad - Respondent
C.M.A.No.326 of 2005
Decided On : 16-03-2022
ESI Act - Coverage of Establishment - Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P4, Ex.R2, Ex.R3, Ex.R4, Ex.R5, Ex.R6, Ex.R7, Ex.R8, Ex.R9, Ex.R10 - The court held that the establishment was not coverable under the provisions of ESI Act based on the evidence provided by the authenticated documents and wage registers. The appellant's contention of unity in management, supervision, and control was not accepted by the court. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation against the order passed in EIC No.38 of 2001, where the petitioner sought that his shop is not coverable under the provisions of the ESI Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the establishment was not coverable under the provisions of the ESI Act based on the evidence provided by the authenticated documents and wage registers.
Issues: The main issue was whether the establishment was coverable under the provisions of the ESI Act and whether the workmen were included as a party to the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the establishment was not coverable under the provisions of the ESI Act based on the evidence provided by the authenticated documents and wage registers. The court also noted that the appellant's contention of unity in management, supervision, and control was not accepted.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, confirming the order dated 05.08.2004 passed in EIC No.38 of 2001 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.
ORDER :
1. This appeal is filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation aggrieved by the order dated 05.08.2004 passed in EIC No.38 of 2001 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner seeking that his shop is not coverable under the provisions of the ESI Act is allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that M/s.Bulchand & Company and M/s.Bulchand Enterprises are situated in the same address and the employer of both the Units are one and the same, but the Tribunal erred in concluding that they are different Units and does not cover by ESI and Ex.R10 discloses the principal employer of both the Units. The Statutory Inspector during his investigation on verification of the records found that twenty five (25) persons were employed for wages on 01.01.1995. He would further submit that once the establishment was covered under the Act, it is the statutory duty of the respondent herein to pay the contribution towards premium under the Act, and therefore, sought to set aside the order under challenge.
3. Perusal of the order shows that one Detaram Lalchand is a principal employer of M/s.Bulchand & Company, Ramesh Govindram and Umesh Govindram are nothing to do with it. M/s. Bulchand & Company, M/s. Bulchand Enterprises and M/s. R.G. Bulchand & Company were concluded as same establishment. The Inspector of Corporation visited the petitioner establishment on 22.07.1999 verified the records like attendance and wage registers from January, 1995 to June, 1999 and found that twenty five persons (25) were employed for wages from 01.01.1995. It is the case of the appellant herein that M/s.Bulchand & Company and M/s. Bulchand Enterprises are inter-related and interdependent and are owned by the same principal employer and twenty five (25) persons were working in both the Units. Fourteen (14) employees were working in M/s. Bulchand & Company and eleven (11) employees were working in M/s. Bulchand Enterprises and that it is only one establishment and accordingly Code Number was issued, but the Tribunal after verifying the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, allowed the petition and hold that the petitioner therein is not coverable under the provisions of the ESI Act. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the case law cited by both the learned counsel.
5. The Chairman of the Tribunal held that Ex.P1-Renewal of Registration Certificate issued by the Labour Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Ex.P2 issued by the Sales Tax Department, Ex.P3-Certificate of Registration issued by the ACTO and Ex.P4-Certificate issued by the Income Tax Department clearly establishes that M/s.Bulchand & Company is doing business at Door No.5-8-615 and 615/1, Abid Road, Hyderabad. Ex.R2 (corresponding to Ex.P1) discloses that Mr.Detaram Lalchand is the owner of the petitioner shop but the names of other establishments were not found in it. Even in Ex.R3-electricity bill, the name of the other establishments was not shown. As per Ex.R4-Form C-10 Notice-preliminary inspections report of the appellant, the respondent herein was doing business of textiles and sales of readymade garments and it employed less than fourteen (14) persons for the years 1995-99. It was mentioned that Bulchand Enterprises was conducting business in the adjacent building but the entrance is same in which it was mentioned that both the establishments are one and the same. Ex.R5-Form C-10 notice, in which the name of Ramesh Govindram was shown as principal employer, but the address of the firm is not noted. As per the comparison between Exs.R4 and R5, the respondent herein was established in the year 1933 and whereas M/s.Bulchand Enterprises was established in the year 1979 and that the nature of business is totally different from each other. As
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the evidence provided by authenticated documents and wage registers to determine the coverage of an establishment under the E....
The functional integrality of the establishments justified their clubbing and coverage under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.
The court ruled that workers engaged in pre-operative fit-out works are not covered employees under the ESI Act and ordered a refund of contributions based on prior incorrect payments.
Pre-operative fit-out workers are not considered employees under the E.S.I. Act as they do not qualify for coverage based on the establishment's operational timeline, rendering the request for ESI co....
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....
The definition of 'employee' under the Employees' State Insurance Act includes those employed through immediate employers, negating the need for direct employment by the principal employer for covera....
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
