1. Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) - Head office/main branch office was covered - Branch office covered. (178) PLR
  2. Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) - Out of twelve employees found working at that point of time, only three were permanent while rest were temporary employees due to rush on account of Diwali festival - Merely because some blower for furnace was found working and there was a bottle cooler, it would not mean that the appellant was running a factory with the requisite number of employees so as to be covered - A small sweet mart employed certain persons only for preparing extra sweets during Diwali festival and that work could not go on for more than a fortnight - Sweets are perishable items and the manufacturing process for those covers only a limited small period. (179) PLR
  3. Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) - Simply because deceased was inside the factory premises and died due to failure of the heart or some other reason, it could not be concluded that he was on duty and had met with an accident during the course of employment - It was neither an accident nor the death occurred during the course of employment - Entry is made at the gate in all factories but no such record was summoned by the claimant to show that he had entered the factory at the commencement of duty hours. (179) PLR
  4. Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) S. 45 -A, 75 - It is clear that if the employer disputes the correctness of the order/demand for contribution under Section 45-A of the Act, he could challenge the same under Section 75 of the Act before the Employees State Insurance Court and ESI authorities are not required to approach the Employees State Insurance Court - Though Section 75 of the Act does not envisage as to who has to approach the Employees' Insurance Court, by necessary implication when the employer denies the liability or applicability of the provisions of the Act or the quantum of the contribution to be deposited by him, it is for the employer to approach the Insurance Court and seek adjudication - It is not for the Corporation in each case whenever there is a dispute, to go to the Employees' Insurance Court and have the dispute adjudicated - Otherwise the Act would become unworkable and its object and purpose would be defeated.   (173) PLR
  5. Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) S. 45-A - Claim of Corporation from the employer - Limitation on the basis of the orders passed in Section 45-A - No time limit is prescribed. (180) PLR
  6. Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) S. 53 - Bar would apply to the cases filed under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (178) PLR
  7. Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) S. 75(1)(g), 121 - Petitioner-Corporation has an alternative remedy for recovering the contribution/damages and interest, which according to the petitioner, was not liable to be paid - Constitution of India, Article 226.  (179) PLR
  8. Employees State Insurance Corporation Act, 1948, Section 85(a)(i)(b) - Whether the court has been given judicial discretion only to reduce the sentence of imprisonment for any term lesser than six months or whether it also has discretion to levy no fine or a fine of less than five thousand rupees   The object of creating offence and penalty under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 is clearly to create deterrence against violation of provisions of the Act which are beneficial for the employees - Non-payment of contributions is an economic offence and therefore the Legislature has not only fixed a minimum term of imprisonment but also a fixed amount of fine of five thousand rupees under Section 85(a)(i)(b) of the Act - There is no discretion of awarding less than the specified fee, under the main provision - It is only the proviso which is in the nature of an exception whereunder the court is vested with discretion limited to imposition of imprisonment for a lesser term - Conspicuously, no words are found in the proviso for imposing a lesser fine than that of five thousand rupees. (2016)3 PLRSC 520

 


Supreme Court e@journal
PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Download

Android App

on the Google Play Store

SUPREME COURT e@Journal

 

  PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 

 Reporting Since 1900

articles

Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy
(c) Punjab Law Reporter / punjablawreporter@gmail.com / 9463598502
Log out | Edit