Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2000(85)FLR346]; (2000)ILLJ1300Bom
ORDERKochar, J.1. The appellant is a statutory Corporation established under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 for implementation and enforcement of the beneficial legislation which was enacted to provide for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, employment injury and also to make provisions for certain other matters in relation thereto. The E.S.I. Act provides for applicability of the provisions of the Act to such establishments or factories as prescribed therein. A detailed procedure is also laid down in the Act as also in the rules and regulations framed thereunder. The Act is a self-contained Code in itself and it provides for adjudicating machinery and a forum in the form of Employees State Insurance Court which has all the trappings of a Civil Court and which functions as a Court of law to resolve the disputes between the employees-employers Corporation within the four corners of the Act.2. The Respondents herein are the members of one family ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(1)BomCR471; (2000)IILLJ355Bom
ORDERR.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.1. This appeal arises from judgment and order dated 27th April 1994, passed in Case No. EIC/9/87 by the Employees Insurance Court at Panaji (hereinafter called as 'the Insurance Court'). By the impugned judgment, the Insurance Court has set aside the order of the Deputy Regional Director passed under section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act') on 17-4-1986. By the said order, the respondent was called upon to contribute an amount of Rs. 8,978.80 for a period from 1-3-1984 to 31-1-1986 plus interest amount of Rs. 1,932.50 along with further interest at the rate of 6% with effect from 1-2-1986 onwards within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said order. The contention of the appellant is that since the respondent refused to comply with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder on the purported plea that the establishment of the respondent is not covered by the provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)IIILLJ9Bom
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The Employees' State Insurance Court has preferred this appeal against order dated 30th December, 1986 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court, Bombay on Application (ESI) No. 27 of 1984. 2. By the impugned order, the trial Court held that the appellant establishment was not a 'shop' under notification No. ESI - 1677/3910/PH-15 dated 18th September 1978 issued by the Government of Maharashtra extending the provisions of the Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948 to other establishments and the establishment was not covered under the provisions of the said Act with effect from 12th November, 1978. The trial Court also held that the two orders dated 10th May, 1982 imposing damages amounting to Rs. 29,274/- on the respondent herein were not valid. In view of the above findings, the trial Court passed necessary consequential orders. 3. It appears that the trial Court mainly relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Dattaram Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1995ACJ215; (1999)IIILLJ70Bom
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. Employees' State Insurance Corporation has preferred this appeal against order dated January 11, 1988 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court at Bombay in Application (ESI) No. 5 of 1985.2. This appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. The trial Court has rightly followed the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Mohamad Ismail Ansari v. E.S.I.C. Bombay : (1979)IILLJ168Bom . It is not open to this Court to entertain arguments and consider as to whether the said case was rightly decided or wrongly decided. I am in respectful agreement with the above referred judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court.3. The respondent was an insured person and an employee under the provisions of Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The respondent was working in the premises of M/s. Raymond Wool, Combing Division, Thane on October 8, 1982, when the respondent met with an accident and was admitted to E.S.I. Hospital, Mulund...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(1)ALLMR80; [2005(105)FLR1118]; (2005)IIILLJ71Bom
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the original on-applicant, appellant herein, Deputy Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Nagpur (for short 'Corporation'), against the judgment/Order dated October 10, 1997, passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Chandrapur in E.S.I.C. Case No. 1/1993, thereby, it was held that the respondent/original applicant, Industry/Factory is exempted from the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'E.S.I. Act'), and therefore, not liable to pay contribution under the Act. Therefore, this appeal under Section 82(2) of the E.S.I. Act.The learned counsel Ms. Maldhure, appearing for the appellant pointed out the question of law, which needs consideration, and the same is as under:In view of no individual exemption granted to the factory Navyug Minerals, by the Notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Mantralaya, Bombay, SIA 7290/1624/Lab-4, dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1994)IIILLJ1149Bom
Vaze, J.1. The short point raised in this appeal is whether attendance bonus paid by the management under a scheme wrought by a settlement between the management and the workmen can be called 'wages' within the meaning of Clause (22) of Section 2 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act').2. As a result of a settlement, under Section 2(P) read with Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, between the applicant Company and the Chemical Workers' Union, a scheme of attendance bonus was introduced with effect from 1st January 1968. Such of the workmen who remain present at least on all but one days were eligible to receive one day's wages per month by way of attendance bonus to be calculated at the end of each quarter. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation ('the Corporation') treated this attendance bonus as 'wages' and asked the employer to pay the contribution which stand was negatived by the Employees' Insurance Court at Bombay, giving rise to the present appeal.3. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1987(1)BomCR92; [1987(54)FLR796]; 1987MhLJ25
B.G. Deo, J.1. 'Which is the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offences of non-payment of contribution under section 85-A and the offence of non-submission of contribution cards under section 85(g) are committed under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, (for short the Act), when the Regional Office of the Corporation under the Act is situated at Nagpur and the employees governed by the said Act reside elsewhere beyond the local limits of the jurisdiction of Nagpur Court' is the common question of law of some importance which arises for decision in all the aforesaid six revision applications.2. All these six Criminal Revision Applications are by employers from Nanded. Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 84/86 to 87/86 are by the Chairman, Nanded Central Co-operative Consumers Wholesale and Retail Society Ltd.; Nanded and the General Manager of the Nanded Central Co-operative Consumers Wholesale and Retail Society Ltd.; Nanded, Criminal Revision Application Nos. 88/86 and 89...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(5)BomCR61; [2006(111)FLR478]
Desai Ranjana P., J.1. The appellants Employees State Insurance Corporation has challenged in this appeal, judgment and order dated 26-8-2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Employees Insurance Court, North Goa at Panaji in ESIC No. 4/ 2000. This appeal is preferred under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, 'the said Act'). Under Section 82 of the said Act, an appeal lies to the High Court from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court if it involves a substantial question of law. It would be, therefore, necessary to see whether this appeal involves any substantial question of law. Since, it is an appeal, before dealing with the rival contentions, I have not only perused the impugned judgment but also the records of the case and the deposition of the witnesses.2. Respondent 1 filed an application under Section 75 of the said Act, inter alia, for a declaration that the respondents are not covered under the provisions of the said Act. The appellants' case, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2007(112)FLR898]; (2007)2LLJ182Bom
Abhay S. Oka, J. 1. The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date and the judgment was reserved. Today, the Appeal is kept for dictation of judgment.2. The Appeal is preferred under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ESI Act). The Appeal will lie only on a substantial question of law. The Appellant- Employees' State Insurance Corporation and its officers have taken exception to the judgment and order dated September 18, 1995 passed by the learned Judge of the Employees' State Insurance Court, Solapur. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Judge of the ESI Court allowed the application filed by the Respondent under Section 75 of the ESI Act. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Judge held that the Respondent was not a factory within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the ESI Act and its members are not employees within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the ESI Act. The learn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(2)ALLMR630; 1998(4)BomCR16
ORDERAshok C. Agarwal, J.1. Petitioners, in the present group of petitions, are aspirants for Postgraduate medical courses commencing from January, 1998, As has now become the normal plight of medical students, present petitioners, per force, have found themselves in Court before commencement of their course.2. The State Government has from time to time been issuing various Government Resolutions prescribing rules for admission to medical courses. Those that are impugned in the present petitions, pertain to the requirement of performing Government service as a pre-requisite condition for grant of Postgraduate registration.3. Prior to 1996 candidates, aspiring for Postgraduate registration, were required to execute a bond to serve the Government for a period of two years or pay Rs. 1 Lakh as compensation to the Government. On 28th February, 1996 the Government issued a Government Resolution doing away with the prior requirement of executing a bond and prescribed performance of one year ...
Tag this Judgment!