Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) - Head office/main
branch office was covered - Branch office covered. (178) PLR
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 rupeesThe 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
