HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN R. PEDNEKER
REGIONAL DIRECTOR E.S.I. CORPORATION – Appellant
Versus
M/S. PAHELVI BAKERY – Respondent
FA/133/1999
[Insurance] - [Employees' State Insurance Act] - [Sections 2(k), 2(12), 45-A, 75] - [The court interpreted the definitions of 'manufacturing process' and 'factory' under the ESI Act and the Factories Act, concluding that the use of a refrigerator for yeast storage did not constitute a manufacturing process with the aid of power, thus affirming the ESI Court's decision.]
Fact of the Case:
The ESIC Corporation appealed against the ESI Court's ruling that a bakery was not covered under the ESI Act for the period prior to November 12, 1978, based on the argument that the use of a refrigerator for yeast storage constituted power usage in manufacturing.
Issues: Whether the use of a refrigerator for storing yeast constitutes a manufacturing process carried out with the aid of power under the ESI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the use of power must be direct and integral to the manufacturing process, and mere storage of ingredients does not meet this criterion.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
JUDGEMENT
1.The present Appeal is filed by the ESIC Corporation under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as ‘ESI Act’) challenging the order dated 12th March 1997 passed by the Employees’ State Insurance Court, Mumbai (hereinafter referred as ‘ESI Court’) in Application (ESI) No.93 of 1992 filed by the Respondent, whereby the ESI Court NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Digitally signed by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2024.07.12 2024:BHC-AS:27526 was pleased to allow the Application and hold that the Respondent-Establishment was not covered within the provisions of ESIC Act, prior to 12th November 1978 and set aside the order dated 7th February 1991 and 13th February 1991 passed under Section 45-A by the Respondent-Corporation.
2.Brief facts leading to the filing of the Appeal are as under:-
3.The Appellant-Corporation issued show cause notice in From-C-18 calling upon the Respondent to Show Cause as to why an amount of Rs.16,382/- should not be determined under Section 45-A of the ESI Act for the period 4th October 1976 to 11th November 1978. On receipt of reply the Corporation by orders dated 7th February 1991 and 13th February 1991 passed an order under Section 45-A determining the amount of Rs.16,382/- as contribution payable by the Respondent for the period from 4th October 1976 to 11th November 1978 and further interest of Rs.889/-. The said order passed under Section 45-A was challenged before the ESI Court under Section 75 of the ESI Act.
4.By the impugned order dated 12th March 1997 the ESI Court allowed the Application filed by the Respondent under Section 75 of the Act. The ESI Court held that usage of a domestic refrigerator does not amount to usage of power in the manufacturing process of bread/pav and thus held that the Respondent-Establishment was not covered within the ESI Act for the period from 4th October 1976 to 11th November 1978 against which the present Appeal is filed.
5.Ms.Anita Bafna, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the substantial question of law arises in this matter as under:-
6.In support of the question of law stated above, the learned counsel for the Appellant submits that yeast is required to be stored in the refrigerator for the purpose of mixing maida for the manufacture of bread/pav. Since the fridge uses electricity there is power utilization by the Respondent in the manufacturing process.
7.The Respondent-Establishment is thus covered within the definition of Section 2(k) of the Factories Act. She further submits that storing and preserving yeast for mixing with flour for the purpose o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.