Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1956)58BOMLR328
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. A rather interesting and important question arises under the Employees' State Insurance Act (XXXIV of 1948) as to the liability of the employer to pay special contribution on the compensation payable by the employer to his employees who have been laid-off under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The few facts which are necessary to be considered in order to dispose of this reference are that in the last quarter of 1953 the Nutan Mills became liable to pay compensation for lay-off in the sum of Rs. 1,312-15-0 and on this amount it paid to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation incorporated under the Act a sum of Rs. 9-13-6 as special contribution under Section 73A of the Employees' State Insurance Act. In the first quarter of 1954 the mills became liable to pay layoff compensation in the sum of Rs. 521-11-9 and on this amount it paid a sum of Rs. 3-15-0 as special contribution. On May 12, 1954, the mills called upon the Corporation to refund t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1956Bom336; ILR1956Bom575; (1956)ILLJ215Bom
Chagla, C.J.1. A rather interesting and important question arises under the Employees' State Insurance Act (34 of 1948) as to the liability of the employer to pay special contribution on the compensation payable by the employer to his employees who have been laid-off under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The few facts which are necessary to be considered in order to dispose of this reference are that in the last quarter of 1953 the Nutan Mills became liable to pay compensation for layoff in the sum of Rs. 1,312-15-0 and on this amount it paid to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation incorporated under the Act a sum of Rs. 9-13-6 as special contribution under Section 73A, Employees' State Insurance Act.In the first quarter of 1954 the Mills became liable to pay lay-off compensation in the sum of Rs. 521-11-9 and on this amount it paid a sum of Rs. 3-15-0 as special contribution. On 12-5-1954 the Mills called upon the Corporation to refund these two amounts as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1958Bom314; (1958)60BOMLR217
Chainani, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Election Tribunal, Surat, by which the election of the appellant as a member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Bombay from the Mazagaon constituency, Greater Bombay, has been set aside, The election was held on 11-3-1957. There were two candidates contesting at this election; the appellant and the respondent. We have been informed at the Bar that four candidates had been duly nominated, but that after the nomination papers of the appellant and the respondent were held to be in order, the other candidates withdrew from the election. The appellant polled 22,914 votes, while the respondent obtained 14,885 votes. The appellant was, therefore, declared duly elected. The respondent thereafter submitted a petition challenging the election of the appellant, on the ground that the appellant, who is an Ayurvedic Medical Practitioner, held an office of profit under the State of Bombay, by reason of his being an Insurance ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR1417; (1959)IILLJ742Bom
Chainani, C.J. 1. The question which arises for determination in these two applications is whether compensation, payable to workers, who have been laid off, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is 'wages' within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act. The term 'lay-off' is defined in Clause (kkk) of S. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act as meaning the failure, refusal or inability of an employer on account of shortage of coal, power or law materials or the accumulation of stocks or the breakdown of machinery or for any other reason to give employment to a workman whose name is borne on the muster-rolls of his industrial establishment and who has not been retrenched. To put it briefly, lay-off therefore means the failure, refusal or inability of an employer to give employment to his employee. There is an explanation to this clause which states : 'Every workman whose name is borne on the muster-rolls of the industrial establishment and who presents himself for work a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1962)IILLJ687Bom
1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution whereby the petitioners has, inter alia, applied for a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondent 1 being the conciliation office from proceedings further with conciliation proceedings further with conciliation proceedings in the matter of seven different demands made in respect of employment and services of respondents 2 to 8 separately be Engineering and General Employees' Union. The facts leading to this petition are as follows : The respondent 2 was in the employment of the petitioner for nearly thirteen years. From 19 May to 2 June, 1960 he was under treatment of a panel doctor under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme. He had obtained two medical certificates from the doctor. The respondent's case is that he had reported for work with final certificate of fitness on 23 June, 1960. The respondent 2 was not allowed to resume work. In connexion with his right to be employed and reinstated in work, the Engineering and Genera...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1964Bom94; (1963)65BOMLR701; ILR1964Bom187; (1963)IILLJ544Bom
Patel, J.1. These two appeals arise out of applications made by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bombay, to recover from the appellants before us various sums of moneys as employees' contribution to the insurance fund for two different periods. 2. Appeal No. 476 arises out of an application No. 39 of 1960 whereas Appeal No. 477 arises out-of application No. 130 of 1960. In the first application the claim is Rs. 11, 877 for the period) commencing from 29th September 1957 to 31st October 1959 and in the Second the amount claimed is Rs. 5382.50 nP. for the period commencing; from 2nd of November 1959 to 3otb September 1960. 3. The allegation is that in one compound the two following factories are working, Usha Dyeing, Bleaching and Printing Mills (Private) Ltd., and Usha Prints India (Private) Ltd., and they constitute one factory as denned in Sub-section (12) of Section 2 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Usha Dyeing, Bleaching and Printing Mills (Private) Ltd., whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1963(7)FLR369]; 1963MhLJ962
Patel, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of applications made by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bombay, to recover from the appellants before us various sums of moneys as employee's contribution to the insurance fund for two different periods. 2. Appeal No. 476 arises out of an Application No. 39 of 1960 whereas Appeal No. 477 arises out of Application No. 130 of 1960. In the first application the claim is Rs. 11,877 for the period commencing from 29 September, 1957 to 31 October, 1959 and in the second the amount claimed is Rs. 5,382.50 for the period commencing from 2 November, 1959 to 30 September, 1960. 3. The allegation is that in one compound the two following factories are working : Usha Dyeing, Bleaching and Printing Mills (Private), Ltd., and Usha Prints (India) (Private), Ltd., and they constitute one factory as defined in Sub-section (12) of S. 2 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Usha Dyeing, Bleaching and Printing Mills (Private), Ltd., which we will...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1963)IILLJ104Bom
ORDER24. Application is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom111; (1964)66BOMLR780; ILR1965Bom8; 1965MhLJ157
(1) This is an appeal under S. 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, (Act No. 34 of 1948), from an order passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay. The question which arises in the appeal is whether the appellants Messrs. Bank Silver Company, are a 'factory' within the meaning of Section 2 clause (12) of the Act. The appellants filed an application in the Employees' Insurance Court for a declaration that they were not covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act and that the partners of the appellant firm were not 'employees' within the meaning of Section 2 clause (9) of the Act. The application has been dismissed and this appeal is directed against that order.(2) The facts which are necessary for the decision of the question raised on this appeal are admitted. The appellants are a partnership firm owing an establishment in which articles of silver are manufactured. The firm employs 18 workers in its establishment and, in addition, four of the six partners of the firm also ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1964(9)FLR411]
1. This is an appeal under S. 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act (Act XXXIV of 1948), from an order passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay. The question which arises in the appeal is whether the appellants, Bank Silver Company, are a 'factory' within the meaning of S. 2, Clause (12), of the Act. The appellants filed an application in the Employees' Insurance Court for a declaration that they were not covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act and that the partners of the appellant-firm were not 'employees' within the meaning of S. 2, Clause (9), of the Act. The application has been dismissed and this appeal is directed against that order. 2. The facts which are necessary for the decision of the question raised on this appeal are admitted. The appellants are a partnership firm owning an establishment in which articles of silver are manufactured. The firm employs eighteen workers in its establishment and, in addition, four of the six partners of the firm also work in t...
Tag this Judgment!