Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1974)ILLJ453Bom; 1973MhLJ1037
Chandurkar, J.1. This is a reference made by the Employees' Insurance Court, Nagpur, under S. 81 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Act. The question referred is as follows :'Whether the term 'wages' as defined under S. 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 includes all the payments made for overtime work and, if so, is the employer's special contribution payable on such an amount ?'The above referred question arose out of an application filed by the Shivraj fine Art Litho Works, Subhash Road, Nagpur-2 hereinafter referred to as the employer, under S. 75 read with S. 76 of the Insurance Act, disputing its liability to pay Rs. 1,787 on account of employer's special contribution in respect of the remuneration paid to the workers who had worked overtime. The Insurance Inspector had found that during the period July, 1966 of June, 1967, a sum, of Rs. 71,466.53 was paid on account of overtime work to the employees i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)89BOMLR571; (1989)ILLJ356Bom
Pendse, J.1. Fariyaz Hotels Private Limited are a Private Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and one of its Directors is Hosang Bamanshaw Mistry. The Company owns a hotel known as 'Fariyaz Hotels' situate at 25, Off Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Bombay and the hotel consists of a restaurant and two bars. About 175 persons are employed in the hotel, and in the kitchen which is situate on the First Floor of the Hotel, about 41 persons are working. On August 13, 1970, the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation informed the Company that the kitchen attached to the hotel and the restaurant stood covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with effect from July 1, 1970 and the Company should furnish the requisite information in the prescribed form. Certain correspondence transpired between the Company and the Regional Director, the Company asserting that the kitc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ1369Bom
B.B. Vagyani, J.1. The petitioners seek to challenge the legality and validity of recovery orders dated February 11, 1988 issued by respondent No. 2, under Section 45-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.2. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as under :3. The petitioner No. 1 is the Co-operative Society which is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioner-Society is engaged in the work of providing different services to its clients and customers such as Security Service, Transport Service, Canteen Service etc. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 25 are its working Members. The total number of Members of the Petitioner-Society is around 190, out of which, work of supervision and office administration of the Society is done on Honorarium basis, by the petitioner Nos. 2 to 25. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 25 are doing honorary work for the petitioner No. 1 -Society, by accepting Honorarium.4. The membership of the Society is res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ1085Bom
1. This is an appeal under the Employees' State Insurance Act. 1948, against the order dated July 12, 1988, in Application No. EIC/5 of 1985 which was taken by the appellants under Section 75 of the Act. The challenges available for an appeal, as Section 82 itself indicates, are highly of a limited nature-only when the matter involves a substantial question of law. 2. Before I come to the various challenges, it is advantageous to set out the story of the matter. The appellants are a registered partnership firm of which Dr. Sulokshana Dessai (A.W. - 1) is said to be the managing director-partner. It is common ground that the firm has got some quarry for extraction of basaltic stones in a village called Pilliem in Sanguem Taluka. After the extraction operation, the boulders are carried to another village called Sal Curti in Ponda Taluka, where with the use of electric power the boulders are broken into smaller sizes to be sold as concrete metal for the use of construction. On November 27...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : I(2006)ACC231; 2007ACJ463; 2005(4)ALLMR794; [2006(108)FLR357]; (2006)ILLJ968Bom; 2005(4)MhLj1018
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Advocate for the Appellants and the Respondent No. 1. 2. This is an appeal filed against the order of the MACT, Mumbai, dated 8.10.1996 by which the appellants was directed to pay Rs. 70,000/- inclusive of Rs. 12,000/- payable under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the Respondent No. 1 who was claimant before the Tribunal. 3. Undisputed facts in this case were that the respondent No. 1 was employed as a packer with M/s. Hybo Hindusthan. The employer had engaged bus bearing No. MMK-7039 owned by Mr. Harry V. Desilva and insured with the present appellants. The insurance policy was valid on the date of the accident. The accident occurred on 3.5.1991 at about 6.40 p.m. when the respondent No. 1 left factory of the employer and came on MIDC Road. 4. Now, at this juncture, it had to be noted that the initial case set out by the respondent No. 1 was improved by her when she was recalled after her cross examination was over. Earlier her stand was that the bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(3)ALLMR887; [2004(102)FLR754]; (2004)IIILLJ415Bom; 2004(3)MhLj102
S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Judge. Employees State Insurance Court, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the 'Insurance Court' for the sake of brevity), dated 17-12-1988 in Application (E.S.I.) No. 43/1986, filed before the said Insurance Court by the respondent No. 1. The learned Insurance Court, Bombay, by an impugned order, has reduced an amount of damages levied by the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bombay to the tune of Rs. 54,000/- as against Rs. 1,07,925.20 Ps.2. More facts :--The respondent No. 1 had filed an application (E.S.I.) No. 43/86, under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act, 1948' for short), in the Court of learned Insurance Court at Bombay, against the present appellant and the Tahsildar for recovery of E.S.I.C. Dues, Bombay. The said respondent No. 1, has contended that the respondent No. 1 is registered as a small scale I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1964Bom94; (1963)65BOMLR701; ILR1964Bom187; (1963)IILLJ544Bom
Patel, J.1. These two appeals arise out of applications made by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bombay, to recover from the appellants before us various sums of moneys as employees' contribution to the insurance fund for two different periods. 2. Appeal No. 476 arises out of an application No. 39 of 1960 whereas Appeal No. 477 arises out-of application No. 130 of 1960. In the first application the claim is Rs. 11, 877 for the period) commencing from 29th September 1957 to 31st October 1959 and in the Second the amount claimed is Rs. 5382.50 nP. for the period commencing; from 2nd of November 1959 to 3otb September 1960. 3. The allegation is that in one compound the two following factories are working, Usha Dyeing, Bleaching and Printing Mills (Private) Ltd., and Usha Prints India (Private) Ltd., and they constitute one factory as denned in Sub-section (12) of Section 2 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Usha Dyeing, Bleaching and Printing Mills (Private) Ltd., whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1971(21)FLR101]; (1970)IILLJ336Bom
1. These two appeals arise out of almost identical facts and raise a common question of law for decision. They arise out of two applications filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') before the Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay (hereinafter referred to the 'E.I. Court'), under S. 75(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (Act XXXIV of 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The application leading to A.O. No. 5 of 1968 was against Messrs. Popular Process Studio and its proprietor Mukund Kashalkar for the recovery of Rs. 1,567.63 as employees' contribution for the period from August 19, 1959 to August 31, 1964, and was filed on January 25, 1965, while the application leading to A.O. No. 6 of 1968 was against Messrs. Dawn Mills Co. (Ltd.) and its Director Ramniwas Ramnarain for the recovery of Rs. 7,252.13 as employees' contribution for the period from October 3, 1954 to March 31, 1960, and was filed on June 23, 1964....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1963(7)FLR369]; 1963MhLJ962
Patel, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of applications made by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bombay, to recover from the appellants before us various sums of moneys as employee's contribution to the insurance fund for two different periods. 2. Appeal No. 476 arises out of an Application No. 39 of 1960 whereas Appeal No. 477 arises out of Application No. 130 of 1960. In the first application the claim is Rs. 11,877 for the period commencing from 29 September, 1957 to 31 October, 1959 and in the second the amount claimed is Rs. 5,382.50 for the period commencing from 2 November, 1959 to 30 September, 1960. 3. The allegation is that in one compound the two following factories are working : Usha Dyeing, Bleaching and Printing Mills (Private), Ltd., and Usha Prints (India) (Private), Ltd., and they constitute one factory as defined in Sub-section (12) of S. 2 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Usha Dyeing, Bleaching and Printing Mills (Private), Ltd., which we will...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1967Bom472; (1967)69BOMLR52; [1967(15)FLR369]; (1967)ILLJ625Bom; 1967MhLJ261; (2008)1SCC(L&S)558
Tarkunde, J.(1) This reference has been made under Section 81 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 by the Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay, for the decision of two questions of law. The questions submitted by the Employees' Insurance Court are:'(1) Whether rule 17 of the Employees' State Insurance Rules is ultra vires the rule making power of the State Government under Section 96(1) of the Employees' State Insurance Act? (2) The circumstances which have led to these questions are very simple The Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) filed an application) in the Employees' Insurance Court , Bombay, against the Opponents who are a manufacturing company for the recovery of the employees' contributions payable under Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 for the period from 1st September 1957 to 31st July 1963. The application was filed on 7th October 1963. Rule 17 of the Bombay Employees' Insurance Courts Rules, 1959 made by the Governm...
Tag this Judgment!