Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1965)IILLJ472Bom
1. This is an appeal by the Employees' state Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the corporation) against the decision of the learned Judge, employees' Insurance Court, Bombay, who dismissed an application made by the Corporation under S. 66 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for reimbursement by the employer of a sum of Rs. 1,207.69 representing the total of the periodical payments made under the Act by the Corporation to one Mohamed Sayed (hereinafter referred to as the injured person), who was injured. On 2 December, 1960 Mohamed Sayed joined duty at 8 a.m. and was working on a power press. At about 10-45 a.m. he was feeding sheets in the press for giving them the side shape of the kerosene tin. At that time the sheet got stuck up in the die and he was straightening out the sheet. He put his hand from the side through a gap of about 1 inch to manipulate the sheet and accidentally put his leg on the pedal of the press. As a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1970Bom413; (1970)72BOMLR320; 1970MhLJ780
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 as the 'E. I. Court'), under Section 75(2) of the Employees' 'State Insurance Act, 1948 (Act 34 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. 1567.63 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 Ram Narayan for the recovery of Rs. 7252.13 as employees' contribution for the period from October 3, 1954, to March 31. 1960, and was filed on Jun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)ILLJ24Bom
1. This writ petition challenges the notification dated 18th September, 1978 issued by the State Government, respondent 1, under S. 1(5) Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The impugned notification extends the provision of the Act inter alia to hotels employing 20 or more employees within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay.2. It is common ground that, by reason of notification issued by the Central Government under S. 1(3) of the Act, the Act had then come into force over an area of the State of Maharashtra greater than the Municipal limits of Greater Bombay.3. On 31st December, 1973 the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, respondent 2 wrote to respondent 1 suggesting that the Act should be extended to cover the categories of establishments therein mentioned, which included hotels. The letter suggested that such extension need not cover all sectors of employment or all areas simultaneously.4. On 23rd September, 1974 res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1980)IILLJ81Bom
1. This petition raises an interesting question as to whether the Directors of a Public Limited Company are principal employers within the meaning of S. 2(17) of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The facts which have given rise to this petition are not in dispute and are briefly as follows : The petitioners were Directors of Digvijay Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as the 'company'). The petitioners ceased to be directors from July 9, 1969 onwards. The company owned a textile mill and as required by the Act, the company was required to contribute an amount of Rs. 3,95,112.53 towards the employees' contribution for the quarter ending June 30, 1968 and September 30, 1968. The company was also required to make contribution towards employer's contribution of an amount of Rs. 3,33,403 for the quarter ending December 31, 1968 to March 31, 1970. The responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1989(58)FLR781]; (1988)ILLJ413Bom
Jahagirdar, J.1. The question as to the interpretation of the world 'shop' occurring in a notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra under S. 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, is involved in this appeal. The facts will be mentioned in a moment. Before that, one must notice the legal provision under which the notification is issued. The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 makes a provision that it will apply, in the first instance, to all factories, including factories belonging to the Government, other than seasonal factories. However, by virtue of the provisions contained in sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 1, the appropriate Government is empowered, in consultation with the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, to extend the provisions of the Act or any of the said provisions, to any other establishment, or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise. Where, however, the appropriate Government is the State Government, not only the consu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : I(1999)ACC199; 1998(4)ALLMR681; 1998(3)BomCR861; (1999)ILLJ55Bom; 1998(2)MhLj574
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the Order dated 27th November 1990 passed by the Employees Insurance Court at Panaji, hereinafter referred to as 'E.S.I. Court'. It appears that this Court did not formulate any substantial questions of law at the time of admission of this Appeal. Moreover, in terms of section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter called as 'the said Act' an appeal can lie from on order of E.S.I. Court only if it involves substantial questions of law and not otherwise. No doubt paragraph 1 of the Memo of Appeal itself enumerated certain questions stated to be substantial questions of law. However, the point is whether all those questions can be said to be substantial questions of law? Moreover, Shri N. Sardessai, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, has fairly admitted that the appellant wants to restrict the challenge to the impugned order only to the four grounds, which, according to the learned advocate, g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1986(3)BomCR363
V.V. Vaze, J.1. Smt. N.N. Gaikwad an Inspector of the Employees State Insurance Corporation in her routine tour visited factories in Unit Nos. 214 and 215, A to Z Industrial Estate, Lower Parel, Bombay. She found that two establishments were functioning ; one in Unit No. 214 and another in Unit No. 215. In the former, M/s. Cosmic International Exports were manufacturing spare-parts for automobiles while in the latter M/s. Mehta Agencies were engaged in packing goods. According to Smt. Gaikwad both these unit though housed separately were functionally one and she reported accordingly to the corporation who treated the units as one for the purposes of the Employees State Insurance Act. As the total number of workers in these two units exceeds 20, M/s. Mehta Agencies were asked to make employees contribution and Employers special contribution for the period from the last quarter of 1972 to the first two quarters of 1973. This demand having been confirmed by the Employees Insurance Court, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ515Bom
1. The National Rayon Corporation Ltd. has preferred this appeal against Order, dated January 9, 1980 passed by Employees Insurance Court, Bombay in Application No. 61 of 1973. By the impugned order, the Corporation was directed to recover the employer's special contribution and employees' contribution on the amount of Rs. 33,34,102.43 for the period between January, 1970 and December, 1970 with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date on which the said amount became payable. By the said order, the employer company was also directed to pay cost of Rs. 250 to the Corporation of the proceeding. 2. The appellant carries on business of manufacturing and selling Rayon threads. The appellant employed more than 6000 workers in its factory. The appellant employed about 40 to 41 contractors for carrying out various categories of work for the appellant on the premises of the factory. The said contractors employed various employees. The nature of contracts differed. 3. Sometim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ785Bom
1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bombay has preferred this appeal against order, dated February 9, 1988 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court at Bombay in Appeal (E.S.I.) No. 3 of 1985 filed by the workman Parasnath Shivbaran under Section 54-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. 2. At the relevant time, the Respondent No. 1 was employed as a helper in Colour Mixing Department in Bombay Dyeing and . On March 11, 1981, the Respondent No. 1 met with an accident during the course of his employment as a result whereof his left hand was injured. Due to the said accident, the bones of his left hand thumb got crushed and damaged. A steel wire had to be inserted in his left hand thumb due to which the thumb became stiff. In the proceedings before the Court below ii was the case of the workman that the workman had lost total grip of the left hand fingers as a result of the injuries suffered and his chances to get the same job or similar job were substantially red...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)1BOMLR581; [2000(87)FLR984]; (2001)ILLJ504Bom
D. K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this appeal, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation challenges the order dated July 30, 1982 passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay in Application (ESI) No. 17 of 1976. That application was taken out by the Respondents. By the order Impugned, the Trial Court has declared that the Respondent Company is not liable to pay contribution on the amount of Rs. 12,95,832.20 paid by them as ex gratia and the appellant Corporation is restrained from recovering contributions on the said amount. The above referred amount was required to be paid by the Respondents to its employees pursuant to the memorandum of settlement arrived at between the Respondent and the representatives of its employees. There are various terms of this settlement. One of the terms of the settlement is for making payment of some amount ex gratia at one time by the Respondent employer to the employees. The Trial Court has held that this payment does not amount towages within the meaning of...
Tag this Judgment!