Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ194Bom
U.T. Shah, J.1. In this petition the petitioners are challenging the order passed under Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (The Act) by the Deputy Regional Director calling upon the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 2,09,914/- being the contribution for the period from May, 1981 to July, 1985 alongwith interest amounting to Rs. 50,379.2. The petitioners are a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mahatma Gandhi Road, Secunderabad - 500 003, Andhra Pradesh and Regional Office at Transport House, 128/B, Poona Street, Bombay 400 009, as well as various other branches all over India and in the State of Maharashtra, The Respondent No. 1 is the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (the Corporation) and the Respondent No. 2 is the Deputy Regional Director (DRD) appointed under the Act.3. Vide his letter dated July 29, 1986, the Regional Director of the Corporation, Maharashtra State enquired of the petitioners as to why the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR673; 2007(5)BomCR493; (2007)109BOMLR1651; [2007(115)FLR563]; (2008)ILLJ735Bom; 2007(6)MhLj333
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondent company though it was served. Mr. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that though the respondent has been served, the respondent has never appeared on earlier occasions when the matter was heard. This First Appeal is of 1988 and though the respondent has been served, respondent has not chosen to appear in this Court. Hence, there is no option for this Court but to decide the First Appeal after hearing the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. The short question which arises in this First Appeal is regarding the applicability of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the petrol pumps owned by the respondent company. 3. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under:4. Respondent was running two petrol pumps; o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : I(1995)ACC688; 1995(1)BomCR435
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. M/s. Standard Fabricators (India) Private Ltd., have filed First Appeal No. 772 of 1987 impugning part of order dated 9th March, 1987 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court, Bombay, in Application (ESI) No. 45 of 1987 in so far as said order is against the appellant. The E.S.I. Corporation has filed First Appeal No. 852 of 1987 against the same order in so far as the said order is against the Corporation. M/s. Standard Fabricators (India) Private Ltd., the employer is covered under the Employees State Insurance Act.2. By an order dated 1st August, 1981, passed under sub-section (1) of section 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (being the order impugned in Application (ESI) No. 45 of 1987), the Regional Director of the E.S.I. Corporation determined various amounts of contribution payable by M/s. Standard Fabricators (India) Private Ltd. to the Employees State Insurance Corporation. By the said order, various amounts of contribution payable by the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(1)BomCR422; [1991(63)FLR148]
S.M. Dadu, J.1. This petition challenges the vires of notification dated 18th September 1978 issued by the 1st Respondent under section 1(5) and section 1(4) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The Act has been passed to provide for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and to make provision for certain other matters in relation thereto. Being an enactment of the Union Government, the Act was made applicable in the first instance to all factories other than seasonal factories. Having regard to the sheer size and diversity of employments in the country, it was left to the appropriate Government to extend the provisions of the Act or any of them to 'any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial commercial, agricultural or otherwise'. The expression 'appropriate Government' was to mean (i) the Central Government in respect of establishment under it control or a railway administrati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR674; 2008(5)BomCR513; [2008(119)FLR641]; (2009)ILLJ491Bom
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 22/2/2005 thereby allowing First Appeal No. 696 of 2001. In the said First Appeal filed by the present respondent - company, the judgment and order of the Employees' Insurance Court at Pune rendered on 4/5/2001 was under challenge and the learned Judge of the Employees' Insurance Court was pleased to dismiss Application (ESI) No. 18 of 1993 filed under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the ESI Act' for short). It appears that the Sub-Regional office of the appellant - Corporation at Pune had by its letter dated 17/8/1993 informed the company regarding the coverage of its establishment under the provisions of the ESI Act commencing from 27/11/1976 and the said decision of the Corporation was upheld by the Employees' Insurance Court at Pune. When First Appeal No. 696 of 2001 was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 22/2/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(1)BomCR645; 2008(111)BomLR84; (2009)IILLJ686Bom
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. By the present petition, there is a challenge to the judgment and order made by the Industrial Court on 22.08.1995 in Revision ULP No. 6/1992 confirming the judgment and order made by the Labour Court, Nagpur in Complaint ULP No. 761/1988 decided on 18.12.1991 refusing the award of backwages to the petitioner.2. Mr. Jamal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, made the following submissions. The petitioner was sanctioned special leave with pay from 12.06.1986 to 01.10.1986 by the respondent-employer and he also received the sickness benefits for the period of illness as is clear from an order made by Works Manager, S. T. Central Workshop, Nagpur on 18.10.1986 (Annexure 'M' with this petition). The chargesheet was given to him on 13.03.1986 and thereafter a show cause notice was given to him on 22.06.1986. Finally, the respondentemployer issued dismissal order pursuance to the said show cause notice on 09.03.1987. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1996(74)FLR2259]; (1997)IIILLJ212Bom; 1996(2)MhLj331
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J. 1. This is Criminal Writ Petition for quashing certain criminal proceedings. Heard both the sides. 2. The concerned Officer under the Employees' State Insurance Act filed the complaint in the Court below alleging that the petitioners have committed an offence of criminal breach of trust in not depositing the Employees' State Insurance contribution collected from the employees with the Department and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of two complaints criminal cases are registered by the learned Magistrate which are mentioned in the petition. 3. Being aggrieved by the initiation of the criminal proceedings, the petitioners have filed this Criminal Writ Petition challenging the validity and continuation of the prosecution against them. Two argument were urged in support of the petition. Once is that the petitioners are not the principal employers or occupier of the company in question and therefore, they ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1984(2)BomCR454; (1984)86BOMLR251
V.V. Vaze, J.1. M/s. Wardhaman Printing Press ('Press') at Sholapur, a partnership concern, applied under section 77 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('Act') to the Employees' State Insurance Court and the Labour Court ('Insurance Court') for a declaration that they are not a factory within the meaning of section 2(12) of the Act. The application was dismissed by the Insurance Court and hence this appeal.2. The sheet anchor of the applicants case is that applications Nos. 2 and 3, Prakash and Kumud who are partners in the press could not be called 'Persons who were employed for wages' within the meaning of the expression as used in section 2(12) of the Act inasmuch as they being partners could not be employed by themselves.3. It appears that applicants Nos. 2 and 3 have been supervising the work of the firm, executing orders, keeping accounts and in return applicant No. 2 Prakash received a remuneration at the rate of Rs. 1,800/- per annum from 1961 to 1968 which was raised ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992(2)BomCR615; [1992(65)FLR941]; (1993)ILLJ642Bom; 1992(1)MhLj483
1. The short question that arises for my decision in the present petition is whether the Cricket Club of India is covered by the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter, 'the Act') 2. Section 1(4) of the Act provides that, 'It shall apply, in the first instance, to all factories (including factories belonging to the Government) other than seasonal factories.' The above provision, therefore, makes the Act applicable to factories. 3. Section 2(12) of the Act defines factories in the following terms :- ''factory' means any premises including the precincts thereof - (a) whereon ten or more persons are employed for wages on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power or is ordinarily so carried on, or (b) whereon twenty or more persons are employed or were employed for wages on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ509Bom
M.L. Pendse, J. 1. The respondent No. 1 is a Company incorporated under the companies Act, 1956 and has registered office at Secunderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Company is engaged in transport business and has branches all over India through which the Company carries on business of transport of goods sand materials. Some of the branches are situated in the State of Maharashtra. By notification published under section 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the Government of Andhra Pradesh provided that the transport establishments are covered by the provision of the Act. The notification was published in May 1981. It is not in dispute that the establishment in Andhra Pradesh was registered under the provisions of the Act. On July 29, 1986 the Deputy Regional Director, employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bombay served show cause notice upon the respondent No. 1 to explain why the contribution should not be paid for a peri...
Tag this Judgment!