Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)IILLJ1141Bom
1. This appeal arises out of the proceeding under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and the Order dated August 18, 1995 in application ESI No. 14190. Tle appellant Mls Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. is a registered company having Code No. 331505 1. It i is stated that the appellant company engages contractors in the Double Wall Workers Glass 1 Division and the workers of the said Glass Division are the employees of the contractors who 10,, work on different machines and give desired, production as per the specifications of the company. The wages of the contract labourers are i paid by the respective contractors and that the 1 appellant company is not the employer of those 15 i employees. The contractors disburse the wages to the contract labourers and that contractor obtains receipt for the payment of the wages from 1 the employees. It is the case of the appellant that 1 as per the policy of the appellant company, 201 whenever an urgency occurred on account of i the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(4)ALLMR336; 2001(4)BomCR93; (2001)4BOMLR298; [2001(89)FLR412]; (2001)ILLJ1261Bom; 2001(3)MhLj508
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner Company is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent to cover the petitioner Company under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (E.S.I. Act). It is further aggrieved by an order passed by the Competent Authority under Section 45(A) of the E.S.I. Act determining the amount of contribution payable in respect of employees of the petitioner's factory and a further order passed by the Competent Authority under section 45(C) of the E.S.I. Act issued to the Recovery Officer for recovery of the arrears of the E.S.I. Contribution payable by the petitioner Company. Finally it has also challenged the order of Employees' Insurance Court (E.I. Court) passed on 20th January, 1998 in application (E.S.I.) No. 96 of 1986 filed by the petitioner Company to challenge the aforesaid orders passed by the Competent Authority under the Act. The E.I. Court has exercised its jurisdiction to decide the said application under section 75 of the Act hol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1982(2)BomCR263
V.A. Mohta, J.1. These three appeals at the instance of the Central India Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Company Limited (The Empress Mills), Nagpur are directed against the common judgment dated 13th December, 1974 by which three applications under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('The Act of 1948' for short) have been disposed of. Insurance Case No. 12 of 1966 has been filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation ('The Corporation' for short) claiming a sum of Rs. 21,855.83 as unpaid employees, contribution for the period July 1954 till November 1965. The Empress Mills has filed Insurance Case No. 2 of 1969 and Insurance Case No. 9 of 1970 for a declaration that the amount forcibly recovered from it by the Corporation was in fact not payable. Inasmuch as the controversy about liability---factual as well as legal---was common, by agreement of parties, these three cases were consolidated, common evidence was recorded in Insurance Case No. 12 of 1966 and the three m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : II(1995)ACC291; 1995ACJ315; 1994(4)BomCR217; (1999)IIILLJ90Bom; 1995(1)MhLj758
ORDERD.R. Dhanuka, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation against order dated 3rd July, 1979 passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Bombay in Application No. 50 of 1978. By the impugned order, the Employees' Insurance Court held that the injury sustained by the deceased injured person was an 'employment injury' and the dependents of the deceased were entitled to receive the dependents benefits. 2. It is unfortunate that an urgent matter of this nature has remained pending in this Court for a period of 15 years. The Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, is directed to place all appeals arising from applications under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 for final hearing on Board within 10 days from today. 3. One Robert Sebastian Cutinho was working as a boiler attendant in Sulphur Refinery Pvt. Ltd. The said workman was duly covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and was an injured person. On 17th April, 1976,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1993(3)BomCR351; (1993)95BOMLR740; (1994)IILLJ138Bom
M.L. Pendse, J.1. A short but interesting question falls for determination in this appeal preferred by Employees' State Insurance Corporation against judgment dated February 7, 1991, delivered by learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1933 of 1986. The facts which give rise to the judgment are as follows : The appellants-Corporation is constituted under the provisions of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited was an establishment' contemplated under the Act and was required to deposit employers' contribution with the Corporation under the provisions of the Act. Respondents Nos. 4 to 10 are Directors of Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills, which is respondent No. 11. Respondent No. 11 was taken over by Respondent No. 3 National Textile Corporation after the Ordinance dated October 18, 1983 was promulgated and which was subsequently made into Act known as Textile Undertaking (Taking Over the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2008(118)FLR970]; (2008)IIILLJ1025Bom; 2008(4)MhLj343
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard Mr. Mehta for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent No. 2 State. Advocate for respondent No. 1 is absent when called.2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 29th of September 1999 of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai, discharging the respondent No. 1.3. The complainant, Inspector of Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short the 'ESI Corporation'), filed a complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate against the respondent No. 1, alleged that respondent No. 1 had failed to pay employer's and employees' contribution, in accordance with provisions of Section 39 and 40 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the 'E.S.I. Act') read with Regulation 31 of the E.S.I. (General) Regulations 1950. In the complaint it was further alleged that by non-payment of the compensation, the respondent No. 1 had committed an offence punishable under Section 85 of the E.S.I. Act.4. The complaint w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1993(2)BomCR148; (1993)95BOMLR16
S.M. Daud, J.1. The interesting question arising in this appeal under section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (E.S.I. Act), is whether the use of electric power for processing the effluent water preparatory to its eventual dispersal, can be termed as a manufacturing process as contemplated by the use of that expression occurring in section 2(12) of the aforementioned Act?2. The question posed in the first paragraph has to be determined in the backdrop of the following facts :Respondent Vyankatesh Co-operative Processors Society Limited of Ichalkaranji in District Kolhapur, of which Pandurang Yeshwant Magdum is the Secretary, was in the business of hand-processing grey-cloth at Ichalkaranji. The business being done by the Society involved the processes of bleaching, dyeing and mercerising. The water employed in these processes got polluted and the same had to be treated before its discharge into the Krishna River basin. For the discharge of the effluent, permission had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2001(91)FLR385]; (2001)IILLJ1622Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit. The learned counsel for the Respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. This is an Appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated August 29, 2000 of the Employees' Insurance Court, Thane. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, this First Appeal has been heard for final hearing. A compilation of the record has been made available to the Court by the learned counsel and with their assistance I have perused the record of the case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The Appellant was employed with a firm known as Rukmini Rubbers whose industrial establishment is situated at Wagle Estate, Thane. On March 9, 1992, the Appellant was working on a Milling Machine. According to the employment injury report which was prepared by the Investigating Officer, the Appellant met with serious acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2002(93)FLR596]; (2002)IILLJ640Bom
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. 1. This Revision Application has been filed by the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhavan, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013, seeking to revise the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazagaon, Mumbai dated June 5, 2000. The petitioner-complainant filed a complaint before this learned Magistrate under Section 85(a) of the ESI Act, alleging that certain contribution due under the Act of the ESI Corporation has not been remitted by the respondent in accordance with the provisions of the ESI Act. Therefore the respondent has committed offences under the said Section. 2. The respondent has filed an application before the learned Magistrate contending that more than a period of two years has been lapsed after taking cognizance of the complaint, the trial has not been commenced and that therefore the respondents are entitled to be discharged in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in common c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2004(101)FLR1126]; (2004)ILLJ921Bom; 2004(2)MhLj441
V.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order (Exh. A/62) dated October 18, 2002 passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Mumbai (E.I. Court for short), whereby an application filed by the applicant/appellant seeking to summon Shri J.R. Patankar, Assistant Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation as a Court witness came to be rejected on the ground that his evidence was not necessary for deciding the matter in controversy before the Court.The Facts2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:The appellant (original applicant) is a registered partnership firm operating as commission agent and also engaged in the business of Beetle Nuts, Pepper, Cardamom and other spices. By letter dated July 28, 1980 the Regional Director of the Employees' Insurance Corporation informed the appellant that the appropriate Government extended the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short) to other establishments under Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!