Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1433
G. Patribasavana Goud, J.1. In WP. No. 1888 of 1997 filed by the Employees Union of the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., and in the connected Writ Petitions filed by others under Article 226 of the Constitution, constitutional validity of Section 2(9)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('Act' for short) as amended by Act 29 of 1989, and the validity of Rule 50 of the Employees' State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 ('Rules' for short), together with Rules 51 and 54 thereof, as amended by the Employees' State Insurance (Central)(Second Amendment) Rules, 1996 under Notification dated 23.12.1996, are questioned.2. While issuing Rule Nisi and passing a conditional order of stay, Learned Single Judge, by his order dated 4.2.1997, referred the said Writ Petition No. 1888 of 1997 and the connected Writ Petitions to the Division Bench. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation ('Corporation' for short) has also preferred Writ Appeal No. 1436 of 1997 as against the said conditiona...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1991(63)FLR206]; (1999)IIILLJ231Kant
M. Rama Jois, J.1. The appeal is presented under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act ('the Act' for short) aggrieved by the order of the E.S.I. Court and the writ petition is presented by the respondent in the appeal questioning the constitutional validity of Regulation 40 of the E.S.I. Regulations which prescribes the period of limitation for making an application for refund of contribution erroneously paid.2. Brief facts of the case, are these : The respondent is the management of the works at Mangalore. An agreement was entered into between the management and its employees in the course of conciliation. The agreement reads :'Whereas an industrial dispute arose between the management of Tile Factories in Mangalore (as per Schedule) represented by the Western India Tile Manufacturers Association, Mangalore, and the workmen of Tile Factories in Mangalore represented by the Kanara Hanchu Kelasagara Sangha, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada Hanchina Kelasagara Sangh, Mangalore, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR852
Venkatachala, J. 1. Having regard to the nature of the points arising for our decision in this Appeal, we heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties on the merits of this Appeal and are proceeding to decide the Appeal at the stage of admission itself.2. This is an Appeal filed by the Employees' Union of the employees employed in the Office of the National Textile Corporation (APKK & M) Limited, Bangalore (for short 'the Employees Union'), under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the ESI Act'), against the order dated 6.1.1991 made by the Employees' State Insurance Court (for short 'the Insurance Court') rejecting their ESI Application No. 3/1985 in which they had sought for a declaration that no contribution was liable to be paid to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (for short 'the ESI Corporation') under the ESI Act for the employees employed in the office of the National Textile Corporation (APKK & M) Ltd., at Bangalore [for s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR465]; ILR2002KAR4019; 2002(5)KarLJ411; (2002)IIILLJ757Kant
K. Bhakthavatsala, J. 1. This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 directed against order dated 21-12-2000 passed in ESI Application No. 69 of 1999 on the file of the ESI Court (Additional Industrial Tribunal) at Bangalore.2. For the purpose of convenience and better understanding, the appellant and the respondent are hereinafter referred to as the applicant and respondent-ESI Corporation as arrayed in the Court below.3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal may be stated as under:That the applicant filed an application under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948 against the respondent-ESI Corporation before the ESI Court at Bangalore praying for the following reliefs.-- (a) to set aside the claim in C-18, dated nil at Document No. 7 to the application;(b) to order that the amount paid towards books and periodicals under the broad head of Modular Expenses wage as defined unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003ACJ577; [2002(92)FLR1177]; ILR2002KAR448; 2002(1)KarLJ379; (2002)ILLJ979Kant
The Court1. This appeal is filed by the ESI Corporation to challenge the order dated 1-3-1997 in ESI Application No. 38 of 1995 passed by the ESI Court.2. The appellant-Corporation is represented by the learned Counsel, Sri V. Narasimha Holla, whereas the respondent 1 is represented by the learned Counsel, Sri T. Narayanaswamy and the respondent 2 is represented by the learned Counsel, M/s. Bangalore Law Associates.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri V. Narasimha Holla had taken me through the impugned order under challenge. He found fault with the impugned order passed by the ESI Court on the ground that as on the date of accident on 12-4-1990, the respondent 1-employee was not at all an employee within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the 'ESI Act'). It was also argued by him that the wages of the respondent 1 came to be raised from Es. 1,600/- to Rs. 1,765.14 ps. and that raise came exactly on 1-4-1990 and therefore, it is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2002(93)FLR381]; ILR2002KAR1220; 2002(2)KarLJ123
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. The present appeal is by the ESI Corporation questioning the order passed in ESI Application No. 5 of 1984 by the Employees' Insurance Court, Mangalore, dated 30-4-1988 which allowed the application holding that the payment made was under the Production Incentive Scheme and directing the ESI Corporation to refund Rs. 13,098.90.2. The brief facts are as follows:The ESI Corporation by its letter dated 15-10-1982 demanded M/s. Lamina Suspension Products Private Limited to pay contribution of Rs. 20,891.39 for the period May 1981 to July 1982 towards the production allowance. In pursuance of the demand, the respondent-company deposited an amount of Rs. 13,098.90 on 28-12-1982 and intimated the ESI Corporation by their letter dated 3-1-1983. The respondent-company made representation by their letter dated 2-4-1984, disputing the payment of contribution on the ground that production incentive is not wages as defined under Section 2(22) of the ESI Act. In spite of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR1149]; ILR2002KAR4562; 2003(2)KarLJ544; (2003)ILLJ73Kant
Tirath S. Thakure, J. 1. The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, is whether the appellant-Bangalore Turf Club Limited is a factory within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act or a shop within the meaning of notification dated 5-1-1985 issued under Section 1(5) thereof. The question arises in the backdrop of the following facts: 2. The respondent-Regional Director of the ESI Corporation by an Order dated 13-10-1988 passed under Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, ['ESI Act' for short] called upon appellant-club to register its employees, submit the prescribed returns and pay ESI contribution in terms of the Act and the regulations framed thereunder. The order proceeded on the premise that the appellant-company had been established to carry on the business of a race club and providing various amenities to public as well as to the members of the club. From the audited balance-shee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2001)IILLJ1461Kant
Chidananda Ullal, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-Establishment to challenge the order dated February 13, 1997 in E.S.I. Application No. 41/92 passed by the E.I. Court, Bangalore. In passing the said order, the E.I. Court while allowing the said application filed by the appellant-applicant-Establishment held that the respondent-Corporation was entitled to recover the E.S.I. contribution of Rs. 13,719.00 as against the original contribution of Rs. 18,417.00 demanded for the period from June, 1990 to March, 1992 in respect of certain number of workers and further in respect of two other workers by name, Sri Bhaskar (for the period from March, 1991 to May, 1992) and yet another worker by name, Sri Pandian (for the month of May, 1992).2. The appellant-Establishment herein is represented by the learned counsel, Sri S.V. Shastry, whereas the respondent-Corporation is represented by the learned counsel, Smt. M.P. Geethadevi.3. The learned counsel for the appellant-Establishment, Sr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2001(91)FLR520]; ILR2001KAR4089; 2001(4)KarLJ384; (2001)IILLJ973Kant
1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation being aggrieved of the order of the E.S.I. Court, Bangalore in E.S.I. Application No. 183 of 1990, dated 11-4-1996 allowing the application by setting aside the order dated 25-9-1989 passed under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act has come up with this appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:Respondent 1-M/s. Bhagatram and Sons, an establishment carrying on with the business of manufacturing of sweets with the aid of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (L.P.G.) was called upon to pay contribution to the E.S.I, authorities by registering its establishment and to produce the wage and attendance registers for the purpose of determining the contribution. It appears, as the establishment did not appear before the E.S.I, authorities, the E.S.I, authorities have made a formal inspection of the establishment and found that for the month of September 1989 and January 1990 it has employed 10 workers. Accordingly, an order under Section 45-A of the E.S.I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2001(6)KarLJ139
1. This appeal preferred by the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Binny Fields, Binnypeth, Bangalore, under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) against the order dated 10th September, 1999 passed in ESI No. 16 of 1997 before the ESI Court, Hubli, raises an interesting question as to the applicability of the provisions of the Act in respect of an establishment, which establishment admittedly at a given point of time had engaged the services of as many as 12 persons and if the applicability can be avoided by the subsequent dispute raised as to the actual number of employees employed in the establishment.2. The brief facts leading to the above appeal are that, the 1st respondent, a private limited company is an establishment, which undertakes fabrication job of making shutters on the orders placed by its customers. The respondent-company has also obtained registration certificate under the Shop...
Tag this Judgment!