Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)ILLJ606Mad; (1996)IIMLJ447
S.S. Subramani, J. 1. Petitioner in E.I.O.P. No. 2 of 1984, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal.2. The respondent herein, on July 15, 1976, issued a notification whereby certain establishments were also brought into its coverage and one of the establishments was 'shops'. Thereafter, respondent issued notice to the appellant herein why it is not implementing the Notification. A reply was sent and since the same did not satisfy the respondent, it issued a notice on June 9, 1983 that in case the Act is not implemented and the contributions thereunder are not paid, coercive steps will be initiated against it. The appellant/petitioner being aggrieved by the said notice, filed the above original petition before City Civil Court, Madras, for declaration that the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 are not applicable to the petitioner/Society and that the Notification is not binding on it and for a further declaration th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2001)ILLJ37Mad
K. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. Both the appeals in C. M. A. No. 325 of 1992 and C.M.A. No. 566 of 1993 have been filed by the establishment, viz. Ratna Cafe, against the order dated September 4, 1990, passed by the E.I. Court (First Additional City Civil Judge), Madras, in E.I.O.P. No. 122 of 1986 and 4 of 1989, respectively. Brief facts of the cases are:2. The appellant has been carrying on a restaurant business under the name and style of 'Rama Cafe' at No. 425, Triplicane High Road, Madras-5, and also running a canteen at 'Ezhilagam', to cater to the needs of the employees at Ezhilagam. It is stated that foods were prepared at Rama Cafe and taken to Ezhilagam. Both the establishments were treated as one establishment, and the workmen employed at Ratna Cafe are on the rolls of Ratna Cafe only, and used to be engaged for service at the canteen at Ezhilagam. The appellant is also covered as an establishment and has been paying ESI contribution for:1. Salary paid to the staff for the period fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2000)IILLJ68Mad
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned I Additional City Civil Judge, Madras in E.S.I. O.P. No. 133 of 1988. The petitioner before the E.S.I. Court is the appellant in the above appeal. 2. As against the order passed under Section 45 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') by the Assistant Regional Director, O.P. 133 of 1988 came to be filed by the appellant. According to the appellant they are carrying on business of sales, service and repairs of fountain pens, employing 16 employees. It also employs salesman in all the above three show rooms and they are paid wages as per the scales prescribed. One month's salary is paid as bonus at the time of Pongal. In order to motivate the individual salesmen to optimise the sales, the petitioner pays to them an annual commission on the sales effected by them during the period of April 1 of every year to March 31 of the following year. After the completion of the y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2000)IILLJ49Mad
K. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated April 10, 1990, passed by the Employees' Insurance Court (Principal District Judge) Ramanathapuram at Madurai, in E.I.O.P. No. 9 of 1987.2. The respondent-E.S.I. Corporation by an order dated July 24, 1987, passed under Section 45 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'), called upon the appellant herein to pay contribution in respect of 'wages' paid for the workers for frame-filling work done outside the factory premises. The appellant questioned the said order by filing a petition under Section 75 of the Act, before the Employees' Insurance Court in E.S.I.O.P. No. 9 of 1987. The respondent resisted the action of the appellant, on the ground that the employees were engaged in frame-filling work on piece- rate basis and they may work either within the appellant's factory premises or outside thereof, depending, upon the convenience of the parties. There is nec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1977]109ITR454(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. The assessee is a company carrying on business of distribution of electrical energy under a licence issued under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 57 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Sixth Schedule and the Seventh Schedule shall be deemed to be incorporated in the licence of every licensee, not being a local authority. The Sixth Schedule to the Act contains certain financial principles and their application. Paragraph III of the Schedule provides that there shall be created from existing reserves or from the revenues of the undertaking a reserve to be called 'contingencies reserve'. Paragraph IV(1), which deals with the annual appropriation to such a reserve, states that the licensee shall appropriate to contingencies reserve from the revenues of each year of account a sum not less than one-quarter of one per centum and not more than one-half of one per centum of the original cost of fixed assets, provided tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ760Mad
1. The respondent in E.I.O.P. No. 40 of 1983, before the Employees' Insurance Court (I Additional City Civil Court), Madras, has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal, against the order in the aforesaid E.I.O.P. No. 40 of 1983, filed under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, allowing the petition for declaration that the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, are not applicable to the petitioner. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are : The respondent has filed the petition under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, for declaration that the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, are not applicable to the petitioner on the following grounds : The petitioner is a department of Oxford University in the United Kingdom. It is part of Oxford University and a non-profit making institution. It has as its purpose the promotion of learning and research and propagation of knowledge by publishing educational and scholarly books...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2001(90)FLR389]; (2001)ILLJ907Mad; (2001)2MLJ381
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the recovery proceedings of the first respondent dated April 30, 1998, the petitioner-company has filed the above writ petitions.2. The case of the petitioner-company is briefly stated hereunder: It is stated that the petitioner-Standard Literature Company (P) Limited was founded in the year 1924 at Calcutta. The company is engaged in the business of Distributing and Marketing education and reference books. The company has headquarters at Calcutta and branches all over the country including Chennai. Suddenly, by a notice dated January 9, 1990, the first respondent required the petitioner to show cause, why the Employees' State Insurance contribution should not be demanded from the petitioner-company. The petitioner by this letter dated March 3, 1990, requested the first respondent to furnish the inspection report. It is contended that the company has employed less than 20 persons and hence the Employees' State Insurance Act is not applicable to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2001)IILLJ793Mad
P. Thangavel, J.1. These are all appeals against order dated April 30, 1991, on the file of the Employees' State Insurance Court (District Court), Salem, in E.S.I.O.P. Nos. 14 of 1987 and 16 of 1989 filed against the order, dated January 29, 1987, in TN/INS/IX 51.5613-11 and order, dated February 17, 1989, in TN/INS./IX/ 51.5613-11 on the file of the Regional Office (Tamil Nadu) Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras 34, respectively.2. The petitioner in both the petitions is textile mill engaged in manufacture of yarn, etc., with workmen numbering about 800 which includes permanent and temporary employees, apart from apprentices, badlis, etc. The petitioner mill is covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The management of the petitioner's company was remitting both the employees' and employer's contributions regularly in respect ofemployees, who are all covered under the Act. The respondents issued a notice, date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2006(108)FLR23]; (2005)4MLJ169
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court holding that the appellant is a factory for the purposes of the Act and bound to make contributions. The only objection that the appellant has to the impugned order is that the appellant-hotel/restaurant/ canteen is not subject to the provisions of the Act since G.O. Ms. No. 360, Labour and Employment, dated 2nd May 1978 extends the provisions of the Act only to hotels or restaurants employing 20 or more persons on wages and not to other hotels.2. In the absence of a notification under Section 1(5) of the E.S.I. Act, the amendment brought by Central Act 29 of 1989 amending the definition of 'Factory' would not by itself make the provisions, of the Act applicable to the establishment in question was the point raised before the E.S.I. Court in order to avoid the liability of making statutory contributions. This was answered against the establishment by the E.S.I. Court. In ot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2003(96)FLR1174]; (2003)ILLJ1041Mad; (2003)1MLJ497
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The employer is in appeal. The employer contends that the wages paid to casual labour employed in unloading raw hides and skins brought to its factory premises by the transporter is not an expenditure on which an employer is liable to pay any contribution. The employer claims that it is the driver of the lorry who brings workmen required for unloading the raw hides and skins, such unloading being done within the premises of the factory and that the transportation charges which includes the payments to be made to those labourers is paid to the driver who in turn disburses the wages to the casual labourers employed for the purpose of unloading. 2. The learned single Judge has disbelieved the claim of the appellant that the casual labourer engaged for unloading were in fact hired by the driver of the lorry. The learned Judge has taken the view that as the bringing of raw hides and skins to the appellant's factory premises is a continuing requirement in order to ke...
Tag this Judgment!