Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. M.P. Roongta and Ors. (09.01.1987 RAJHC) Semantic Analysis

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. M.P. Roongta and Ors.

Decided On : Jan-09-1987

Court : Rajasthan

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context

$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. M.P. Roongta and Ors. (09.01.1987   RAJHC) Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 85(a) & (b',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 2 of the Act',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 2 of the Act',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 40',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 85(a) & (g',
			(int) 5 => 'section 40 and Regulation',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 2 of the Act'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Inder Sen Israni',
			(int) 1 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
			(int) 2 => 'Shri B.S. Rathore',
			(int) 3 => 'Nos',
			(int) 4 => 'B.S. Rathore',
			(int) 5 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
			(int) 6 => 'Nos',
			(int) 7 => 'Principal Employer',
			(int) 8 => 'Shri Rathore',
			(int) 9 => 'Ajeet Bhandari',
			(int) 10 => 'Anr',
			(int) 11 => 'Shri Bhandari',
			(int) 12 => 'Shri K.M. Roongta',
			(int) 13 => 'Shri K.M. Roongta',
			(int) 14 => 'Shri B.S. Rathore',
			(int) 15 => 'Sardar',
			(int) 16 => 'Gurdayal Singh',
			(int) 17 => 'Anr',
			(int) 18 => 'Suresh Tulshidas v. Collector',
			(int) 19 => 'M.C. Golcha'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal under Section 378',
			(int) 1 => 'Employees',
			(int) 2 => 'State Insurance Corporation',
			(int) 3 => 'Man Industrial Corporation',
			(int) 4 => 'Corporation',
			(int) 5 => 'the E.S.I. Corporation',
			(int) 6 => 'the E.S.I. Corporation',
			(int) 7 => 'Man Industrial Corporation',
			(int) 8 => 'Man Industrial Corporation',
			(int) 9 => 'Corporation',
			(int) 10 => 'Corporation',
			(int) 11 => 'E.S.I.',
			(int) 12 => 'A.I.R. 1974 P & H. 33'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Cr',
			(int) 1 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 2 => 'Jaipur',
			(int) 3 => 'Rajasthan'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '27-6-86',
			(int) 1 => '12',
			(int) 2 => '1',
			(int) 3 => '2',
			(int) 4 => '17',
			(int) 5 => '26',
			(int) 6 => '1',
			(int) 7 => '2',
			(int) 8 => '500/-',
			(int) 9 => '1 1/2',
			(int) 10 => '1',
			(int) 11 => '296',
			(int) 12 => '26',
			(int) 13 => '2',
			(int) 14 => '11-3-1974',
			(int) 15 => '17',
			(int) 16 => '1'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1948',
			(int) 1 => '1950',
			(int) 2 => '42 days',
			(int) 3 => '1985',
			(int) 4 => '1 1/2 months'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Regional Head Quarter'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Bombay 1984 LIC'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1614.I am'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '756397',
			'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 2(17), 40 and 85; Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 - Regulation 26',
			'appealno' => 'S.B.C.L.T.A. No. 209 of 1986',
			'appellant' => 'Employees' State Insurance Corporation',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. M.P. Roongta and Ors. (09.01.1987 - RAJHC)',
			'casenote' => 'Employment State Insurance Act. 1948 - Sections 2(17), Section 4 and 85(a) &amp; (g) and Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950--Regulation 26--Chairman &amp; Managing Director not 'Principal employer' within meaning of Section 2(12)--Held, he was rightly acquitted from offence under Section 85(a)(g).;The question involved is whether the Chairman and the Managing Director are the 'Principal Employer' as defined under Sub-clause (17) of Section 2 of the Act. For bringing him under the definition of 'principal employer,' it is necessary that it should be proved that he was in possession of the contribution cards and also responsible for sending the contribution cards according to the provisions of the Act and the Regulation. No such evidence has been produced by the petitioner. As far the non-petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he is Chairman and there is no allegation what so ever against him, on the basis of which it may be held that he comes within the definition of 'principal employer'.;(b) Words and Phrases - Principal Employer under Section 2(17) of ESI Act--Meaning of.<casenote></casenote>;;Merely because the Managing Director signs a letter on behalf of his Corporation or has seat to sit in the factory premises cannot be considered to mean that he was also 'principal employer' as defined under the provisions of the Act.;Petition Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Suresh Tulshidas v. Collector of Bombay;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Ajeet Bhandari, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-01-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Inder Sen Israni, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Inder Sen Israni, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal under Section 378, Cr. P.C. against the judgment dated 27-6-86 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Jaipur in Criminal Case No.24/75, whereby the accused non-petitioners were acquitted from the offence under Section 85(a) & (b) of the Employees, State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Briefly the facts of this case are that the Employees' State Insurance Corporation filed a complaint against the accused non-petitioners and Shri B.S. Rathore, Manager, Man Industrial Corporation (P) Ltd., alleging that it is a factory as defined under Subsection (12) of Section 2 of the Act. The non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 of the case are the Chairman and Managing Director, respectively, and B.S. Rathore is Manager of the said Corporation. It is contended that they are principal employers of the aforesaid factory as defined in Sub-section (17) of Section 2 of the Act. Therefore, under Section 40 of the Act read with Regulation 26 of E.S.I. (General) Regulations, 1950, every principal employer of a covered factory under the Act in Rajasthan is required to submit contribution card duly affixed with contribution stamps in Set 'A 'B', 'C' accompanied with return of contribution cards in Form 6 within 42 days in the end of contribution period at the Regional Head Quarter of the E.S.I. Corporation. It was further submitted that notwithstanding of statutory provision referred to above and in spite of repeated reminders issued by the E.S.I. Corporation, the accused non-petitioners did not comply with the provisions stated above within the statutory time. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after recording evidence, held in his impugned order that the non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are Chairman and Managing Director and do not fall within the definition of 'Principal Employer' and were, therefore, acquitted from the offences. Shri Rathore was convicted for the offence under Section 85(a) & (g) of the Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 1/2 months.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Ajeet Bhandari learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial court has erred in holding that the non-petitioners were not covered by the definition of 'principal employer' as per the provisions of the Act and has wrongly relied upon the authority of this court 'n M.C. Golcha and Anr. v. State 1985 (1) W.L.N. 296, in which it was held that the Managing Director is not the 'principal employer and cannot be prosecuted for violation of section 40 and Regulation 26. Shri Bhandari contends that Shri K.M. Roongta, non-petitioner No. 2 even though Managing Director had signed the letter, Ex P.3 dated 11-3-1974, which was sent on behalf of Man Industrial Corporation. Apart from this it is also stated that the non-petitioner Shri K.M. Roongta has his seat in the factory premises itself. It is, therefore, urged by the learned counsel that he is also covered by the definition of 'principal employer'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I do not find any force in the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The question involved is whether the Chairman and the Managing Director are the 'principal employers ' as defined under Sub-clause (17) of Section 2 of the Act. Learned lower court held that Shri B.S. Rathore was the Manager of Man Industrial Corporation and was the 'principal employer' as per the provisions of the Act it imposed a fine of Rs.500/- over him for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act. In case of non-payment of fine, he had to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 1/2 months. Merely because the Managing Director signs a letter on behalf of his Corporation or has seat to sit in the factory premises cannot be considered to mean that he was also 'principal employer' as defined under the provisions of the Act. For bringing him under the definition of 'principal employer', it is necessary that it should be proved that he was in possession of the contribution cards and also responsible for sending the contribution cards according to the provisions of the Act and the Regulations. No such evidence has been produced by the petitioner. As far the non-petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he is Chairman and there is no allegation whatsoever against him, on the basis of which it may be held that he comes within the definition of 'principal employer'. The Chairman and the Managing Director of a particular factory or Corporation are usually responsible for laying down the policy and the implementation of the same is left in the hands of Manager or such other persons who are made responsible. The same view was taken in the case Sardar Gurdayal Singh and Ors. v. Regional Director, E.S.I., and Anr., A.I.R. 1974 P & H. 33 and Suresh Tulshidas v. Collector of Bombay 1984 LIC. 1614.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has rightly interpreted and applied the principles laid down in the case of M.C. Golcha (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the result, the Leave petition has no force and is, therefore, dismissed in limine.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1995)IIILLJ598Raj; 1987(1)WLN670',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Roongta and Ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '756397'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. M.P. Roongta and Ors. (09.01.1987   RAJHC) Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 85(a) & (b',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 2 of the Act',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 2 of the Act',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 40',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 85(a) & (g',
		(int) 5 => 'section 40 and Regulation',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 2 of the Act'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Inder Sen Israni',
		(int) 1 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
		(int) 2 => 'Shri B.S. Rathore',
		(int) 3 => 'Nos',
		(int) 4 => 'B.S. Rathore',
		(int) 5 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
		(int) 6 => 'Nos',
		(int) 7 => 'Principal Employer',
		(int) 8 => 'Shri Rathore',
		(int) 9 => 'Ajeet Bhandari',
		(int) 10 => 'Anr',
		(int) 11 => 'Shri Bhandari',
		(int) 12 => 'Shri K.M. Roongta',
		(int) 13 => 'Shri K.M. Roongta',
		(int) 14 => 'Shri B.S. Rathore',
		(int) 15 => 'Sardar',
		(int) 16 => 'Gurdayal Singh',
		(int) 17 => 'Anr',
		(int) 18 => 'Suresh Tulshidas v. Collector',
		(int) 19 => 'M.C. Golcha'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal under Section 378',
		(int) 1 => 'Employees',
		(int) 2 => 'State Insurance Corporation',
		(int) 3 => 'Man Industrial Corporation',
		(int) 4 => 'Corporation',
		(int) 5 => 'the E.S.I. Corporation',
		(int) 6 => 'the E.S.I. Corporation',
		(int) 7 => 'Man Industrial Corporation',
		(int) 8 => 'Man Industrial Corporation',
		(int) 9 => 'Corporation',
		(int) 10 => 'Corporation',
		(int) 11 => 'E.S.I.',
		(int) 12 => 'A.I.R. 1974 P & H. 33'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Cr',
		(int) 1 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 2 => 'Jaipur',
		(int) 3 => 'Rajasthan'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '27-6-86',
		(int) 1 => '12',
		(int) 2 => '1',
		(int) 3 => '2',
		(int) 4 => '17',
		(int) 5 => '26',
		(int) 6 => '1',
		(int) 7 => '2',
		(int) 8 => '500/-',
		(int) 9 => '1 1/2',
		(int) 10 => '1',
		(int) 11 => '296',
		(int) 12 => '26',
		(int) 13 => '2',
		(int) 14 => '11-3-1974',
		(int) 15 => '17',
		(int) 16 => '1'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1948',
		(int) 1 => '1950',
		(int) 2 => '42 days',
		(int) 3 => '1985',
		(int) 4 => '1 1/2 months'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Regional Head Quarter'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Bombay 1984 LIC'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1614.I am'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '756397',
		'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 2(17), 40 and 85; Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 - Regulation 26',
		'appealno' => 'S.B.C.L.T.A. No. 209 of 1986',
		'appellant' => 'Employees' State Insurance Corporation',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. M.P. Roongta and Ors. (09.01.1987 - RAJHC)',
		'casenote' => 'Employment State Insurance Act. 1948 - Sections 2(17), Section 4 and 85(a) &amp; (g) and Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950--Regulation 26--Chairman &amp; Managing Director not 'Principal employer' within meaning of Section 2(12)--Held, he was rightly acquitted from offence under Section 85(a)(g).;The question involved is whether the Chairman and the Managing Director are the 'Principal Employer' as defined under Sub-clause (17) of Section 2 of the Act. For bringing him under the definition of 'principal employer,' it is necessary that it should be proved that he was in possession of the contribution cards and also responsible for sending the contribution cards according to the provisions of the Act and the Regulation. No such evidence has been produced by the petitioner. As far the non-petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he is Chairman and there is no allegation what so ever against him, on the basis of which it may be held that he comes within the definition of 'principal employer'.;(b) Words and Phrases - Principal Employer under Section 2(17) of ESI Act--Meaning of.<casenote></casenote>;;Merely because the Managing Director signs a letter on behalf of his Corporation or has seat to sit in the factory premises cannot be considered to mean that he was also 'principal employer' as defined under the provisions of the Act.;Petition Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Suresh Tulshidas v. Collector of Bombay;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Ajeet Bhandari, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-01-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Inder Sen Israni, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Inder Sen Israni, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal under Section 378, Cr. P.C. against the judgment dated 27-6-86 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Jaipur in Criminal Case No.24/75, whereby the accused non-petitioners were acquitted from the offence under Section 85(a) & (b) of the Employees, State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Briefly the facts of this case are that the Employees' State Insurance Corporation filed a complaint against the accused non-petitioners and Shri B.S. Rathore, Manager, Man Industrial Corporation (P) Ltd., alleging that it is a factory as defined under Subsection (12) of Section 2 of the Act. The non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 of the case are the Chairman and Managing Director, respectively, and B.S. Rathore is Manager of the said Corporation. It is contended that they are principal employers of the aforesaid factory as defined in Sub-section (17) of Section 2 of the Act. Therefore, under Section 40 of the Act read with Regulation 26 of E.S.I. (General) Regulations, 1950, every principal employer of a covered factory under the Act in Rajasthan is required to submit contribution card duly affixed with contribution stamps in Set 'A 'B', 'C' accompanied with return of contribution cards in Form 6 within 42 days in the end of contribution period at the Regional Head Quarter of the E.S.I. Corporation. It was further submitted that notwithstanding of statutory provision referred to above and in spite of repeated reminders issued by the E.S.I. Corporation, the accused non-petitioners did not comply with the provisions stated above within the statutory time. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after recording evidence, held in his impugned order that the non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are Chairman and Managing Director and do not fall within the definition of 'Principal Employer' and were, therefore, acquitted from the offences. Shri Rathore was convicted for the offence under Section 85(a) & (g) of the Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 1/2 months.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Ajeet Bhandari learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial court has erred in holding that the non-petitioners were not covered by the definition of 'principal employer' as per the provisions of the Act and has wrongly relied upon the authority of this court 'n M.C. Golcha and Anr. v. State 1985 (1) W.L.N. 296, in which it was held that the Managing Director is not the 'principal employer and cannot be prosecuted for violation of section 40 and Regulation 26. Shri Bhandari contends that Shri K.M. Roongta, non-petitioner No. 2 even though Managing Director had signed the letter, Ex P.3 dated 11-3-1974, which was sent on behalf of Man Industrial Corporation. Apart from this it is also stated that the non-petitioner Shri K.M. Roongta has his seat in the factory premises itself. It is, therefore, urged by the learned counsel that he is also covered by the definition of 'principal employer'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I do not find any force in the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The question involved is whether the Chairman and the Managing Director are the 'principal employers ' as defined under Sub-clause (17) of Section 2 of the Act. Learned lower court held that Shri B.S. Rathore was the Manager of Man Industrial Corporation and was the 'principal employer' as per the provisions of the Act it imposed a fine of Rs.500/- over him for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act. In case of non-payment of fine, he had to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 1/2 months. Merely because the Managing Director signs a letter on behalf of his Corporation or has seat to sit in the factory premises cannot be considered to mean that he was also 'principal employer' as defined under the provisions of the Act. For bringing him under the definition of 'principal employer', it is necessary that it should be proved that he was in possession of the contribution cards and also responsible for sending the contribution cards according to the provisions of the Act and the Regulations. No such evidence has been produced by the petitioner. As far the non-petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he is Chairman and there is no allegation whatsoever against him, on the basis of which it may be held that he comes within the definition of 'principal employer'. The Chairman and the Managing Director of a particular factory or Corporation are usually responsible for laying down the policy and the implementation of the same is left in the hands of Manager or such other persons who are made responsible. The same view was taken in the case Sardar Gurdayal Singh and Ors. v. Regional Director, E.S.I., and Anr., A.I.R. 1974 P & H. 33 and Suresh Tulshidas v. Collector of Bombay 1984 LIC. 1614.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has rightly interpreted and applied the principles laid down in the case of M.C. Golcha (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the result, the Leave petition has no force and is, therefore, dismissed in limine.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1995)IIILLJ598Raj; 1987(1)WLN670',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Roongta and Ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '756397'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. M.P. Roongta and Ors. (09.01.1987   RAJHC) Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 85(a) & (b',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 2 of the Act',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 2 of the Act',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 40',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 85(a) & (g',
			(int) 5 => 'section 40 and Regulation',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 2 of the Act'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Inder Sen Israni',
			(int) 1 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
			(int) 2 => 'Shri B.S. Rathore',
			(int) 3 => 'Nos',
			(int) 4 => 'B.S. Rathore',
			(int) 5 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
			(int) 6 => 'Nos',
			(int) 7 => 'Principal Employer',
			(int) 8 => 'Shri Rathore',
			(int) 9 => 'Ajeet Bhandari',
			(int) 10 => 'Anr',
			(int) 11 => 'Shri Bhandari',
			(int) 12 => 'Shri K.M. Roongta',
			(int) 13 => 'Shri K.M. Roongta',
			(int) 14 => 'Shri B.S. Rathore',
			(int) 15 => 'Sardar',
			(int) 16 => 'Gurdayal Singh',
			(int) 17 => 'Anr',
			(int) 18 => 'Suresh Tulshidas v. Collector',
			(int) 19 => 'M.C. Golcha'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal under Section 378',
			(int) 1 => 'Employees',
			(int) 2 => 'State Insurance Corporation',
			(int) 3 => 'Man Industrial Corporation',
			(int) 4 => 'Corporation',
			(int) 5 => 'the E.S.I. Corporation',
			(int) 6 => 'the E.S.I. Corporation',
			(int) 7 => 'Man Industrial Corporation',
			(int) 8 => 'Man Industrial Corporation',
			(int) 9 => 'Corporation',
			(int) 10 => 'Corporation',
			(int) 11 => 'E.S.I.',
			(int) 12 => 'A.I.R. 1974 P & H. 33'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Cr',
			(int) 1 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 2 => 'Jaipur',
			(int) 3 => 'Rajasthan'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '27-6-86',
			(int) 1 => '12',
			(int) 2 => '1',
			(int) 3 => '2',
			(int) 4 => '17',
			(int) 5 => '26',
			(int) 6 => '1',
			(int) 7 => '2',
			(int) 8 => '500/-',
			(int) 9 => '1 1/2',
			(int) 10 => '1',
			(int) 11 => '296',
			(int) 12 => '26',
			(int) 13 => '2',
			(int) 14 => '11-3-1974',
			(int) 15 => '17',
			(int) 16 => '1'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1948',
			(int) 1 => '1950',
			(int) 2 => '42 days',
			(int) 3 => '1985',
			(int) 4 => '1 1/2 months'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Regional Head Quarter'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Bombay 1984 LIC'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1614.I am'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '756397',
			'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 2(17), 40 and 85; Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 - Regulation 26',
			'appealno' => 'S.B.C.L.T.A. No. 209 of 1986',
			'appellant' => 'Employees' State Insurance Corporation',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. M.P. Roongta and Ors. (09.01.1987 - RAJHC)',
			'casenote' => 'Employment State Insurance Act. 1948 - Sections 2(17), Section 4 and 85(a) &amp; (g) and Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950--Regulation 26--Chairman &amp; Managing Director not 'Principal employer' within meaning of Section 2(12)--Held, he was rightly acquitted from offence under Section 85(a)(g).;The question involved is whether the Chairman and the Managing Director are the 'Principal Employer' as defined under Sub-clause (17) of Section 2 of the Act. For bringing him under the definition of 'principal employer,' it is necessary that it should be proved that he was in possession of the contribution cards and also responsible for sending the contribution cards according to the provisions of the Act and the Regulation. No such evidence has been produced by the petitioner. As far the non-petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he is Chairman and there is no allegation what so ever against him, on the basis of which it may be held that he comes within the definition of 'principal employer'.;(b) Words and Phrases - Principal Employer under Section 2(17) of ESI Act--Meaning of.<casenote></casenote>;;Merely because the Managing Director signs a letter on behalf of his Corporation or has seat to sit in the factory premises cannot be considered to mean that he was also 'principal employer' as defined under the provisions of the Act.;Petition Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Suresh Tulshidas v. Collector of Bombay;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Ajeet Bhandari, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-01-09',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Inder Sen Israni, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Inder Sen Israni, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal under Section 378, Cr. P.C. against the judgment dated 27-6-86 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Jaipur in Criminal Case No.24/75, whereby the accused non-petitioners were acquitted from the offence under Section 85(a) & (b) of the Employees, State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Briefly the facts of this case are that the Employees' State Insurance Corporation filed a complaint against the accused non-petitioners and Shri B.S. Rathore, Manager, Man Industrial Corporation (P) Ltd., alleging that it is a factory as defined under Subsection (12) of Section 2 of the Act. The non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 of the case are the Chairman and Managing Director, respectively, and B.S. Rathore is Manager of the said Corporation. It is contended that they are principal employers of the aforesaid factory as defined in Sub-section (17) of Section 2 of the Act. Therefore, under Section 40 of the Act read with Regulation 26 of E.S.I. (General) Regulations, 1950, every principal employer of a covered factory under the Act in Rajasthan is required to submit contribution card duly affixed with contribution stamps in Set 'A 'B', 'C' accompanied with return of contribution cards in Form 6 within 42 days in the end of contribution period at the Regional Head Quarter of the E.S.I. Corporation. It was further submitted that notwithstanding of statutory provision referred to above and in spite of repeated reminders issued by the E.S.I. Corporation, the accused non-petitioners did not comply with the provisions stated above within the statutory time. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after recording evidence, held in his impugned order that the non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are Chairman and Managing Director and do not fall within the definition of 'Principal Employer' and were, therefore, acquitted from the offences. Shri Rathore was convicted for the offence under Section 85(a) & (g) of the Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 1/2 months.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Ajeet Bhandari learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial court has erred in holding that the non-petitioners were not covered by the definition of 'principal employer' as per the provisions of the Act and has wrongly relied upon the authority of this court 'n M.C. Golcha and Anr. v. State 1985 (1) W.L.N. 296, in which it was held that the Managing Director is not the 'principal employer and cannot be prosecuted for violation of section 40 and Regulation 26. Shri Bhandari contends that Shri K.M. Roongta, non-petitioner No. 2 even though Managing Director had signed the letter, Ex P.3 dated 11-3-1974, which was sent on behalf of Man Industrial Corporation. Apart from this it is also stated that the non-petitioner Shri K.M. Roongta has his seat in the factory premises itself. It is, therefore, urged by the learned counsel that he is also covered by the definition of 'principal employer'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I do not find any force in the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The question involved is whether the Chairman and the Managing Director are the 'principal employers ' as defined under Sub-clause (17) of Section 2 of the Act. Learned lower court held that Shri B.S. Rathore was the Manager of Man Industrial Corporation and was the 'principal employer' as per the provisions of the Act it imposed a fine of Rs.500/- over him for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act. In case of non-payment of fine, he had to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 1/2 months. Merely because the Managing Director signs a letter on behalf of his Corporation or has seat to sit in the factory premises cannot be considered to mean that he was also 'principal employer' as defined under the provisions of the Act. For bringing him under the definition of 'principal employer', it is necessary that it should be proved that he was in possession of the contribution cards and also responsible for sending the contribution cards according to the provisions of the Act and the Regulations. No such evidence has been produced by the petitioner. As far the non-petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he is Chairman and there is no allegation whatsoever against him, on the basis of which it may be held that he comes within the definition of 'principal employer'. The Chairman and the Managing Director of a particular factory or Corporation are usually responsible for laying down the policy and the implementation of the same is left in the hands of Manager or such other persons who are made responsible. The same view was taken in the case Sardar Gurdayal Singh and Ors. v. Regional Director, E.S.I., and Anr., A.I.R. 1974 P & H. 33 and Suresh Tulshidas v. Collector of Bombay 1984 LIC. 1614.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has rightly interpreted and applied the principles laid down in the case of M.C. Golcha (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the result, the Leave petition has no force and is, therefore, dismissed in limine.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1995)IIILLJ598Raj; 1987(1)WLN670',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Roongta and Ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '756397'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. M.P. Roongta and Ors. (09.01.1987   RAJHC) Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 85(a) & (b',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 2 of the Act',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 2 of the Act',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 40',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 85(a) & (g',
		(int) 5 => 'section 40 and Regulation',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 2 of the Act'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Inder Sen Israni',
		(int) 1 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
		(int) 2 => 'Shri B.S. Rathore',
		(int) 3 => 'Nos',
		(int) 4 => 'B.S. Rathore',
		(int) 5 => 'Judicial Magistrate',
		(int) 6 => 'Nos',
		(int) 7 => 'Principal Employer',
		(int) 8 => 'Shri Rathore',
		(int) 9 => 'Ajeet Bhandari',
		(int) 10 => 'Anr',
		(int) 11 => 'Shri Bhandari',
		(int) 12 => 'Shri K.M. Roongta',
		(int) 13 => 'Shri K.M. Roongta',
		(int) 14 => 'Shri B.S. Rathore',
		(int) 15 => 'Sardar',
		(int) 16 => 'Gurdayal Singh',
		(int) 17 => 'Anr',
		(int) 18 => 'Suresh Tulshidas v. Collector',
		(int) 19 => 'M.C. Golcha'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal under Section 378',
		(int) 1 => 'Employees',
		(int) 2 => 'State Insurance Corporation',
		(int) 3 => 'Man Industrial Corporation',
		(int) 4 => 'Corporation',
		(int) 5 => 'the E.S.I. Corporation',
		(int) 6 => 'the E.S.I. Corporation',
		(int) 7 => 'Man Industrial Corporation',
		(int) 8 => 'Man Industrial Corporation',
		(int) 9 => 'Corporation',
		(int) 10 => 'Corporation',
		(int) 11 => 'E.S.I.',
		(int) 12 => 'A.I.R. 1974 P & H. 33'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Cr',
		(int) 1 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 2 => 'Jaipur',
		(int) 3 => 'Rajasthan'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '27-6-86',
		(int) 1 => '12',
		(int) 2 => '1',
		(int) 3 => '2',
		(int) 4 => '17',
		(int) 5 => '26',
		(int) 6 => '1',
		(int) 7 => '2',
		(int) 8 => '500/-',
		(int) 9 => '1 1/2',
		(int) 10 => '1',
		(int) 11 => '296',
		(int) 12 => '26',
		(int) 13 => '2',
		(int) 14 => '11-3-1974',
		(int) 15 => '17',
		(int) 16 => '1'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1948',
		(int) 1 => '1950',
		(int) 2 => '42 days',
		(int) 3 => '1985',
		(int) 4 => '1 1/2 months'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Regional Head Quarter'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Bombay 1984 LIC'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1614.I am'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '756397',
		'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 2(17), 40 and 85; Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 - Regulation 26',
		'appealno' => 'S.B.C.L.T.A. No. 209 of 1986',
		'appellant' => 'Employees' State Insurance Corporation',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. M.P. Roongta and Ors. (09.01.1987 - RAJHC)',
		'casenote' => 'Employment State Insurance Act. 1948 - Sections 2(17), Section 4 and 85(a) &amp; (g) and Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950--Regulation 26--Chairman &amp; Managing Director not 'Principal employer' within meaning of Section 2(12)--Held, he was rightly acquitted from offence under Section 85(a)(g).;The question involved is whether the Chairman and the Managing Director are the 'Principal Employer' as defined under Sub-clause (17) of Section 2 of the Act. For bringing him under the definition of 'principal employer,' it is necessary that it should be proved that he was in possession of the contribution cards and also responsible for sending the contribution cards according to the provisions of the Act and the Regulation. No such evidence has been produced by the petitioner. As far the non-petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he is Chairman and there is no allegation what so ever against him, on the basis of which it may be held that he comes within the definition of 'principal employer'.;(b) Words and Phrases - Principal Employer under Section 2(17) of ESI Act--Meaning of.<casenote></casenote>;;Merely because the Managing Director signs a letter on behalf of his Corporation or has seat to sit in the factory premises cannot be considered to mean that he was also 'principal employer' as defined under the provisions of the Act.;Petition Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Suresh Tulshidas v. Collector of Bombay;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Ajeet Bhandari, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-01-09',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Inder Sen Israni, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Inder Sen Israni, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal under Section 378, Cr. P.C. against the judgment dated 27-6-86 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Jaipur in Criminal Case No.24/75, whereby the accused non-petitioners were acquitted from the offence under Section 85(a) & (b) of the Employees, State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Briefly the facts of this case are that the Employees' State Insurance Corporation filed a complaint against the accused non-petitioners and Shri B.S. Rathore, Manager, Man Industrial Corporation (P) Ltd., alleging that it is a factory as defined under Subsection (12) of Section 2 of the Act. The non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 of the case are the Chairman and Managing Director, respectively, and B.S. Rathore is Manager of the said Corporation. It is contended that they are principal employers of the aforesaid factory as defined in Sub-section (17) of Section 2 of the Act. Therefore, under Section 40 of the Act read with Regulation 26 of E.S.I. (General) Regulations, 1950, every principal employer of a covered factory under the Act in Rajasthan is required to submit contribution card duly affixed with contribution stamps in Set 'A 'B', 'C' accompanied with return of contribution cards in Form 6 within 42 days in the end of contribution period at the Regional Head Quarter of the E.S.I. Corporation. It was further submitted that notwithstanding of statutory provision referred to above and in spite of repeated reminders issued by the E.S.I. Corporation, the accused non-petitioners did not comply with the provisions stated above within the statutory time. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after recording evidence, held in his impugned order that the non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are Chairman and Managing Director and do not fall within the definition of 'Principal Employer' and were, therefore, acquitted from the offences. Shri Rathore was convicted for the offence under Section 85(a) & (g) of the Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 1/2 months.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Ajeet Bhandari learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial court has erred in holding that the non-petitioners were not covered by the definition of 'principal employer' as per the provisions of the Act and has wrongly relied upon the authority of this court 'n M.C. Golcha and Anr. v. State 1985 (1) W.L.N. 296, in which it was held that the Managing Director is not the 'principal employer and cannot be prosecuted for violation of section 40 and Regulation 26. Shri Bhandari contends that Shri K.M. Roongta, non-petitioner No. 2 even though Managing Director had signed the letter, Ex P.3 dated 11-3-1974, which was sent on behalf of Man Industrial Corporation. Apart from this it is also stated that the non-petitioner Shri K.M. Roongta has his seat in the factory premises itself. It is, therefore, urged by the learned counsel that he is also covered by the definition of 'principal employer'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I do not find any force in the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The question involved is whether the Chairman and the Managing Director are the 'principal employers ' as defined under Sub-clause (17) of Section 2 of the Act. Learned lower court held that Shri B.S. Rathore was the Manager of Man Industrial Corporation and was the 'principal employer' as per the provisions of the Act it imposed a fine of Rs.500/- over him for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act. In case of non-payment of fine, he had to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 1/2 months. Merely because the Managing Director signs a letter on behalf of his Corporation or has seat to sit in the factory premises cannot be considered to mean that he was also 'principal employer' as defined under the provisions of the Act. For bringing him under the definition of 'principal employer', it is necessary that it should be proved that he was in possession of the contribution cards and also responsible for sending the contribution cards according to the provisions of the Act and the Regulations. No such evidence has been produced by the petitioner. As far the non-petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he is Chairman and there is no allegation whatsoever against him, on the basis of which it may be held that he comes within the definition of 'principal employer'. The Chairman and the Managing Director of a particular factory or Corporation are usually responsible for laying down the policy and the implementation of the same is left in the hands of Manager or such other persons who are made responsible. The same view was taken in the case Sardar Gurdayal Singh and Ors. v. Regional Director, E.S.I., and Anr., A.I.R. 1974 P & H. 33 and Suresh Tulshidas v. Collector of Bombay 1984 LIC. 1614.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has rightly interpreted and applied the principles laid down in the case of M.C. Golcha (supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the result, the Leave petition has no force and is, therefore, dismissed in limine.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1995)IIILLJ598Raj; 1987(1)WLN670',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Roongta and Ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '756397'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 85(a) & (b, Section 2 of the Act, Section 2 of the Act, Section 40, Section 85(a) & (g, section 40 and Regulation, Section 2 of the Act

PERSON: Inder Sen Israni, Judicial Magistrate, Shri B.S. Rathore, Nos, B.S. Rathore, Judicial Magistrate, Nos, Principal Employer, Shri Rathore, Ajeet Bhandari, Anr, Shri Bhandari, Shri K.M. Roongta, Shri K.M. Roongta, Shri B.S. Rathore, Sardar, Gurdayal Singh, Anr, Suresh Tulshidas v. Collector, M.C. Golcha

NORP: J.1

ORG: S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal under Section 378, Employees, State Insurance Corporation, Man Industrial Corporation, Corporation, the E.S.I. Corporation, the E.S.I. Corporation, Man Industrial Corporation, Man Industrial Corporation, Corporation, Corporation, E.S.I., A.I.R. 1974 P & H. 33

GPE: Cr, P.C., Jaipur, Rajasthan

CARDINAL: 27-6-86, 12, 1, 2, 17, 26, 1, 2, 500/-, 1 1/2, 1, 296, 26, 2, 11-3-1974, 17, 1

DATE: 1948, 1950, 42 days, 1985, 1 1/2 months

FAC: the Regional Head Quarter

EVENT: Bombay 1984 LIC

TIME: 1614.I am