Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)IILLJ1040Bom
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by mutual consent.3. The revision petitioner was accused in Summary Criminal Case No.2358 of 1995, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded. He was charged for offence punishable under Section 85(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, for contravention of Section 45(2)(a) of the said Act (henceforth referred to as E.S.I. Act for the sake of brevity). The Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to sentence the petitioner for simple imprisonment for six months, fine Rs. 5,000 in default further simple imprisonment for six months. Criminal Appeal No. 32/1999 preferred before Sessions Court, Nanded, was disposed of by Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, vide his judgment and order, dated February 3, 2003. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal partly. He maintained the finding of guilt and conviction, but reduced the amount of fine from Rs. 5,000...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(4)ALLMR983; 2006(1)BomCR155; (2005)107BOMLR766; [2006(108)FLR964]; (2006)ILLJ791Bom; 2006(4)MhLj74
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard counsel for the appellants and the respondents.2. This Appeal is filed by the appellants against the order of the E.S.I. Court, Mumbai, dated 17.2.2005 dismissing the application of the appellants. It was an application under Section 75 of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. Before the ESI Court, it was the stand of the Respondents Corporation that the Appellants club is a shop within the meaning of the Notification dated 18.9.1978 issued by the Government of Maharashtra and it was employing 19 persons for the wages and who were rendering services. It was also their contention that Inspector of the Corporation verified the record including the Books of Accounts for the years 1978-79 to 1982-83 and found that applicant had not covered all their employees and had not paid contribution on certain payment of wages. The issue is of temporary staff engaged on race days for issue of tickets and dividends. The ESI Court frame...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(2)ALLMR146; 2008(2)BomCR226; [2008(116)FLR656]; (2008)IILLJ239Bom; 2008(1)MhLj178
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. In First Appeal No. 844/2004, the appellant is a Corporation incorporated under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, 'ESI Act'). The respondent is a Co-operative Society incorporated and registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 having its registered office at Tulsiani Chambers, 212, Nariman Point, Bombay 400 021.2. On 2-4-1986 an Officer from the appellant visited the respondent's premises for inspection. On 8-9-1988, the appellant sent a letter to furnish complete and correct information in respect of the respondent-society. On 4-1-1989, the appellant issued a letter to the respondents reminding them of the unpaid dues. On 5-1-1989, the appellant's officer visits the respondent's premises to verify the records.3. On 10-1-1989, the appellant issues a letter to the respondents informing them that they are covered by the ESI Act and requesting immediate compliance. On 17-1-1989 a show cause Notice by the appellants issued to the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1996(74)FLR2249]
Tipnis, J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of L.T. Switch Gears and is carrying on its activities as a small scale industry in a gala situated in Shree Ram Co-op. Society at Goregaon, Mumbai. It is the assertion of the petitioner that the firm is covered under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 effective from 1-7-1986. It is the further assertion of the petitioner than till 1st July, 1986 the firm had always engaged less than 10 employees for the purpose of carrying on its manufacturing activities and after it was covered validly as from 1st July, 1986, the firm has made contribution under the Act and the scheme framed thereunder and is also allotted code number under the Act. 2. It appears that Inspectress of the E.S.I. Corporation visited the premises on 14-10-1983 and made certain report. The Regional Director of ESI Corporation held that the company was covered under the provisions of the Act from 14-10-1983 by his order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(5)BomCR163; [2005(107)FLR773]
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The first petitioner is the owner of the hotels known as Taj Mahal Hotel and Taj Mahal Intercontinental situated at Apollo Bunder, Mumbai. The second petitioner is the shareholder of the first petitioner company. The first petitioner is a commercial establishment and is covered by The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act of 1948'). The petitioner's case is that the first petitioner is regularly paying the ESI contribution for and on behalf of his employees. On or about 24.06.1985 the first petitioner entered into a settlement with the Union representing its workmen. By this settlement the first petitioner agreed to give a further sum of Rs. 500/- per month to each employee as and by way of Attendance Linked Incentive (for short 'ALI'). The said settlement became operative w.e.f. the month of April, 1985. The first petitioner averred that in or about the month of December, 1986 it was realised for the first time that 1029 employees were possibly not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(4)BomCR625; [2006(108)FLR671]
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Mehta for the appellants and Mr. Gelani for the respondents. This appeal is filed by the Regional Director Employees' State Insurance Corporation Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'the ESI Corporation') against the order of the Employees Insurance Court Mumbai dated 6th May 1998 in Application (ESI) No. 138/1988. That was an application filed by the present respondents for a declaration that they are not liable to pay contribution as claimed by the corporation for the period in question and that orders of the opponents/Corporation dated 15/9/1987 and 13/9/1988 directing the applicants to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,61,000/- and odd and Rs. 9,161/- and odd were illegal and invalid. The contentions of the applicants/respondents were accepted by the Insurance Court and their application was allowed and necessary declaration was given and, therefore, the Corporation has filed and preferred this appeal.2. The claim and contention of the applicants/respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1978)80BOMLR724; (1979)ILLJ323Bom; 1979MhLJ99
1. The above first appeal was filed by the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation again whom an application was filed by the respondent Bombay Metal and Alloys ., the employer-company, under S. 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, wherein it was declared by the Judge of the Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay, by his judgment and order dated September 22, 1972, that the employees' contribution and the employer's special contribution were not payable on the quarterly attendance-cum-production bonus paid to the workmen, as such quarterly payment is excluded from the definition of 'wages' as given in S. 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. 2. The decision of the learned Judge of the Employees' Insurance Court is challenged in the above first appeal by the Regional Director. Mr. Jaykar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Regional Director, submitted that the learned Judge committed a substantial error of law in not analysing and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(3)BomCR66; (2006)IIILLJ824Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Principally two questions of law have arisen for the determination of this Court in these proceedings:-(i) Whether the expression 'unprotected worker' means (as the Petitioner submits), a worker not protected by labour legislation or whether the expression means a manual worker who is engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled employment as defined in Section 2(11) of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969; and -(ii) Whether a Mathadi worker who has been engaged directly by an employer would fall outside the purview of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969. 2. We shall in the course of the order briefly advert to the relevant provisions of law having a bearing on the subject matter of this case and of the precedents in the field. For the reasons which we would indicate, we are respectfully of the view that the interpretation placed i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(1)BomCR427
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioner National Building Construction Corporation Limited('employer industry') seeks to challenge the order dated 18th March, 1997 passed bythe Industrial Court. The fate of this writ petition depends on the answer to thequestion whether in relation to the employer industry the Central Government is the'appropriate Government' within the meaning of section 2(a) of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 (for short, I.D. Act') and if yes, the complaint filed by the employee was notmaintainable and Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.2. The employee filed the complaint against the employer industry for the allegedunfair labour practices on the part of the employer under Item-9, of Schedule-IV, of theMaharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour PracticesAct, 1971 (for short, MRTU & PULP Act') and it was prayed by the employee that theorder dated 8th July, 1992 and the other orders passed by the employer ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1986(2)BomCR512; (1986)88BOMLR348; (1987)ILLJ9Bom; 1986MhLJ646
1. The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the act') is a welfare legislation designed to provide for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury. Sub-section 3 of S. 1 of the Act which deals with the commencement and territorial application provisions enables the Central Government by a notification in the official gazette to bring the act into force for different states or for different parts thereof. The act applied in the first instance to all factories but Sub-s. 5 of S. 1 enables the State and Central Government to extend the provisions of the Act to any other establishment or class of establishments by notification in the official gazette.2. In exercise of powers conferred by Sub-s. 5 of S. 1 of the Act the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification on 18th September, 1978 extending with effect from 12th November, 1978 all the provisions of the Act to classes of establishments given in the Schedule. Item 3 of para 3 of the Schedule ...
Tag this Judgment!