IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON: 07.10.2021

PRONOUNCED ON : 20.10.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

C.M.A.Nos.1361, 1362 & 1374 of 2021

GRT Hotels and Resorts Private Limited,

(Formerly G.R. Thangamaligai Private Limited),

Represented by its head HR

Dr.Syed Arifullah,

New No.136 (Old No.104), Usman Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

... Appellant in all CMAs/Petitioner

..Vs..

Employees State Insurance Corporation,

Represented by its Deputy Director,

Employees State Insurance Corporation,

143, Sterling Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.

... Respondent in all CMAs/Respondent

Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section

82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 against the order

dated 28.10.2020 passed in E.I.O.P.Nos.7, 6 & 5 of 2011

respectively on the file of the Employees State Insurance Court

(Principal Labour Court), Chennai.

For Appellant in

all CMAs. : Mr.Vijay Narayanan, Senior Advocate

for Mr.R.Parthiban

For Respondent in

all CMAs. : Mr.S.P.Srinivasan

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

COMMON JUDGMENT

These appeals have been filed challenging the separate

orders dated 28.10.2020 passed by the Employees State Insurance

Court (Principal Labour Court, Chennai) in EIOP.Nos.7, 6 & 5 of

2011 under which the Employees State Insurance Court confirmed

the separate orders dated 22.10.2009 passed by the respondent

corporation under section 45(A) of the Employees State Insurance

Act calling upon the Appellant to pay Employees State Insurance

contributions for Aacharis/Silversmiths engaged by the Appellant

as detailed hereunder:

CMA.No.

Period

Employees State

Insurance

contributions payable

(Rs.)

1361 of 2021 corresponds to

EIOP.No.7 of 2011

1997-99

94,378/-

1362 of 2021 corresponds to

EIOP.No.6 of 2011

2004-2007

15,48,351/-

1374 of 2021 corresponds to

EIOP.No.5 of 2011

1996-97

to

1997 – 2002

20,74,532/-

2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are one and

the same, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The contention of the Appellant is that

Aacharis/Silversmiths engaged by them will not fall within the

definition of an employee as per section 2(9) of the Employees

State Insurance Act, 1948 and therefore, they are not liable to

pay the Employees State Insurance contributions for the

remuneration paid by them to Aacharis.

4. However, it is the contention of the respondent

corporation that the Aacharis/Silversmiths engaged by the

Appellant fall within the definition of an employee under

section 2(9)(i) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 as

Aacharis are being regularly employed by the Appellant and it is

their contention that it is immaterial whether the product is

manufactured by the Aacharis within the premises of the

Appellant or elsewhere.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. These appeals are admitted on the following substantial

questions of law:

(a) Whether the Aacharis engaged by the Appellant are the

employees of the Appellant falling within the definition of

Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948;

(b) Whether the Appellant is liable to pay contribution as

demanded by the Employees State Insurance Corporation for the

sum of money paid to Aacharis by the Appellant.

(c) Whether the Employees State Insurance Court has failed

to take into account, the Full Bench Judgment of the Madras High

Court in Bethall Engineering case, where the Court has held that

in case of lack or absence of supervision, the same cannot

establish an employer and employee relationship?

6. Heard Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel

representing Mr.R.Parthiban, learned counsel for the Appellant

and Mr.S.P.Srinivasan, learned standing counsel for the

respondent.

7. In support of the contentions of the Appellant, the

learned Senior counsel for the Ap