Back
M. LAXMAN
Indian Institute of Chemical Technology – Appellant
Versus
Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Director – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Challenge in the present appeal is to the order, dated 11.04.2007 in ESI No.54 of 2004 on the file of Chairman, Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the appellant impugning the notice, dated 13.05.2004, demanding the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.6,77,797/- in pursuance to the inspection report as well as the order, dated 27.09.2004 passed under Section 45-G of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, ‘the Act’) whereby claim for an amount of Rs.3,12,000/- with interest, was dismissed.
2. The present appeal is at the instance of the applicant-petitioner before the ESI Court. The 1st respondent and 2nd respondent herein are the respondents in the ESI Court.
3. For brevity, the ranks of the parties as were referred to before the Insurance Court is maintained.
4. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner is that it is a Government Company and it is exempted from the operation of ESI Act. It is claimed that it has been paying the benefits more than the ESI Act. As such, the ESI Corporation has no jurisdiction over the petitioner company under the ESI Act to demand contri
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the appellant to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.2082, Labour Department dated 29.08.1983, exempting employees on tour for 7 months ....
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'employee' under Sec. 2(9) of the ESI Act and the provisions related to the payment of contribution and ....
Point of Law : Supreme Court considered the scope of notification of establishments under section 1(5) of the 'ESI Act'.
The duty of the Principal Employer to ensure compliance with the ESI Act for contract workers and the Corporation's right to proceed in accordance with the law if the employer fails to comply.
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the correct interpretation and application of the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, particularly Sec. 85(b) in the context ....
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
