w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ramsons Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s Regional Director


Company & Directors' Information:- J K CONSULTANCY AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066762

Company & Directors' Information:- H S CONSULTANCY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1988PTC044368

Company & Directors' Information:- S M CONSULTANCY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1992PTC057293

Company & Directors' Information:- K S CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1988PTC045137

Company & Directors' Information:- S R RAMSONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909GJ2020PTC117311

Company & Directors' Information:- E TO E CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63030KA2008PTC048557

Company & Directors' Information:- Y A CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1987PTC043225

Company & Directors' Information:- R. A. CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD. [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U67120WB1994PTC066521

Company & Directors' Information:- V G CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC054746

Company & Directors' Information:- L S D CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2015PTC262781

Company & Directors' Information:- K .P. A. CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140WB2010PTC142889

Company & Directors' Information:- P O CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000WB2009PTC134219

Company & Directors' Information:- T K M CONSULTANCY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140KL1998PTC012694

Company & Directors' Information:- A & A CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U74140WB1986PTC040777

Company & Directors' Information:- Y K CONSULTANCY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2003PTC121113

Company & Directors' Information:- L M J CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2010PTC208950

Company & Directors' Information:- R. K . CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140AS2006PTC008131

Company & Directors' Information:- M U S INDIA CONSULTANCY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900WB2013PLC191253

Company & Directors' Information:- A & A SERVICES AND CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140OR2012PTC015010

Company & Directors' Information:- J R CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TN2015PTC102294

Company & Directors' Information:- R A D CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2011PTC224038

Company & Directors' Information:- S I M CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2007PTC162468

Company & Directors' Information:- Y. K. M. CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2013PTC254940

Company & Directors' Information:- J. P. CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909GJ2002PTC040433

Company & Directors' Information:- V & T CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999CH2005PTC027862

Company & Directors' Information:- P C CONSULTANCY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74210WB1991PTC053835

Company & Directors' Information:- J A CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U93090MH2008PTC188284

Company & Directors' Information:- L M B CONSULTANCY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999KL2002PTC015318

Company & Directors' Information:- M Y M CONSULTANCY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900KA2011PTC058364

Company & Directors' Information:- S K A CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2020PTC136502

Company & Directors' Information:- T C S CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140RJ1995PTC011052

Company & Directors' Information:- K B M CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900TG2002PTC038403

Company & Directors' Information:- D M M CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140WB2010PTC151887

Company & Directors' Information:- C I S (INDIA) CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120BR2013PTC021019

Company & Directors' Information:- R I W CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KL2013PTC034174

Company & Directors' Information:- P S P CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL2011PTC222022

Company & Directors' Information:- N. K. CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140HR2006PTC036471

Company & Directors' Information:- M E CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140KL2012PTC031172

Company & Directors' Information:- M & M CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1992PTC056149

Company & Directors' Information:- V S B D CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140TN2000PTC045338

Company & Directors' Information:- Z K CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210DL1993PTC052338

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND D CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210MH1982PTC027430

Company & Directors' Information:- D. G. CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB2008PTC129948

Company & Directors' Information:- V F C CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140RJ2015PTC048025

Company & Directors' Information:- E & C CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140TN2007PTC062260

Company & Directors' Information:- L & R CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140TN2009PTC072839

Company & Directors' Information:- P P CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210TN1982PTC009556

Company & Directors' Information:- N R 'S CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210TN1986PTC013630

Company & Directors' Information:- M F S CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH2008PTC177948

Company & Directors' Information:- D P CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140PN2008PTC132654

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND H CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74100MH2004PTC148618

Company & Directors' Information:- R V K CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120MH2011PTC221273

Company & Directors' Information:- H A S D CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120MH2011PTC222997

Company & Directors' Information:- H H S CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120MH2013PTC250345

Company & Directors' Information:- M & W CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74910TN2004PTC053384

Company & Directors' Information:- J K M CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120UP2010PTC042726

Company & Directors' Information:- Y V R CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TG2015PTC098309

Company & Directors' Information:- J L I CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300UP2012PTC052649

Company & Directors' Information:- D R M B CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2014PTC201139

Company & Directors' Information:- M P CONSULTANCY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74120WB1996PTC081085

Company & Directors' Information:- J. L. CONSULTANCY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1985PTC039818

Company & Directors' Information:- S E S CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999WB2011PTC170939

Company & Directors' Information:- G P R CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140CH2012PTC033622

Company & Directors' Information:- S K CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000JH2012PTC000348

Company & Directors' Information:- R & A CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67100DL2011PTC215340

Company & Directors' Information:- M J M CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2005PTC133200

Company & Directors' Information:- A C G CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2005PTC140720

Company & Directors' Information:- H M S CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2010PTC201488

Company & Directors' Information:- D & G CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65990DL2011PTC214142

Company & Directors' Information:- RAMSONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93090DL2009PTC191406

Company & Directors' Information:- R H H H CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900AP2014PTC095348

Company & Directors' Information:- A & C CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140KA2008PTC046754

Company & Directors' Information:- J S M CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000HR2011PTC043455

Company & Directors' Information:- A P R CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000KA2014PTC073639

Company & Directors' Information:- L AND L CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140KL1997PTC011084

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND S CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140KL2005PTC018496

Company & Directors' Information:- P E B CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140KL2011PTC027680

Company & Directors' Information:- Z & H CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85190KL2008PTC023534

Company & Directors' Information:- D C D CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999RJ2020PTC071399

Company & Directors' Information:- D AND N CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PN2020PTC195417

Company & Directors' Information:- V & V CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999RJ2021PTC074392

Company & Directors' Information:- S S G CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140TN1997PTC037763

Company & Directors' Information:- V Z CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140MH2007PTC170875

Company & Directors' Information:- F T CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900CH2007PTC030854

Company & Directors' Information:- A. A. R. M. CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74140DL2006PTC150076

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND M CONSULTANCY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140PB1985PTC006557

Company & Directors' Information:- SERVICES AND CONSULTANCY P. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL2000PTC902217

    First Appeal No. 3193 of 2017

    Decided On, 03 July 2018

    At, High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

    For the Appearing Parties: Dipak R Dave, Sachin D Vasavada, Advocates.



Judgment Text

1. This first appeal under section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short " the Act, 1948) is at the instance of the original applicant before the ESI Court and is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.02.2017 passed by the ESI Court in the ESI Application No.26 of 2009 filed by the appellant herein.

2. The facts giving rise to this first appeal may be summarized as under;

2.1 On 01.11.2008, one officer of the respondentCorporation visited the premises of the appellant. Upon verification of the muster roll, the officer noticed that 24 employees were in the employment of the Company. The officer also noticed that out of 24 employees, 17 employees were working in the establishment/premises of the employer, whereas 7 employees were working on the field at Paguthan/Changodar. It was also found that all the employees were drawing salary less than Rs. 10,000/- per month, which is eligible for them to get register with the ESI Corporation.

2.2 On 03.02.2009, the appellant-Company was heard in this regard. After giving opportunity of hearing, the Corporation passed an order directing the appellant herein to comply with the provisions of the Act and to register all its employees with the ESI Corporation so that the employees can avail of the benefits under the Act.

2.3 The appellant, instead of complying with the provisions of the ESI Act, thought fit to challenge the applicability of the Act before the ESI Court by filing the ESI Application No.26/2009 substantially on two grounds; first, the appellant would not fall within the ambit of the term "factory" as defined under section 2(12) of the ESI Act and second, as seven employees were working outside the premises of the establishment, the provisions of the ESI Act would not be applicable to the appellant.

2.4 According to the appellant, Paguthan is not covered under the sweep of benevolent legislation and, therefore, the employees working at Paguthan cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of making the provisions of the Act applicable.

2.5 It appears that during the pendency of the aforesaid ESI Application filed by the appellant herein, the appellant started complying with the provision of the Act, 1948 and registered all its employees with the ESI Corporation and also started depositing the contribution under section 39 of the Act, 1948. The ESI Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 01.02.2017, held the appellant as an establishment and declared that the Act, 1948 would be applicable from 01.11.2008 and not from 01.06.2011. The ESI, in taking such a view, relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd.vs. E.S.I. Corporation, (2016) 4 SCC 521.

2.6 Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the ESI Court, the appellant is here before this Court with the present first appeal, formulating the following questions as the substantial questions of law in the memorandum of the first appeal.

"(a) In view of findings recorded by the learned ESI Court that the appellant cannot be considered as factory within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the ESI Act, whether learned ESI Court could have sustained the order dated 03.02.2009 making the Act applicable to the appellant?

(b) When only 17 employees were found to be working in the premises of the appellant and admittedly other seven employees were working on the field outside the area covered under the Notification of ESI (the area in which ESI Act is not applicable), whether the said employee could have been clubbed with other 17 employees working in the premises making the Act applicable to the appellant?"

3. Mr. Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the ESI Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned order. According to Mr. Dave, the impugned order is erroneous in law.

4. Mr. Dave would submit that the ESI Court, once having taken the view that the appellant does not fall within the ambit of "factory" as defined under section 2(12) of the Act, 1948, the impugned order could not have been passed.

5. Mr. Dave laid much emphasis on the fact that only 17 employees were working in the premises of the appellant. The Corporation could not have clubbed 7 field workers with the 17 employees working in the premises, thereby taking the tally to 24 employees. According to Mr. Dave, the seven field workers were working without any supervisions or control of the employer in the field. They were working at Changodar and Paguthan area. In such circumstances, Mr. Dave prays that there being merit in this first appeal, the same may be admitted and allowed.

6. On the other hand, this appeal has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Vasavada, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation. Mr. Vasavada would submit that once the Act is made applicable to the establishment, then all its employees would be covered under the Act, 1948. According to Mr. Vasavada, this position of law is now well settled as discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Transport Corporation of India vs. ESIC & Anr., (2000) AIR SC 238.

7. Mr. Vasavada would further submit that the Act, 1948 would be applicable from the date of the notification. The employer has no discretion in selecting the date of the applicability of the Act. In support of his submission, he has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd.vs. E.S.I. Corporation, (2016) 4 SCC 521. Mr. Vasavada, in the last, would submit that the principle of Quid pro Quo/One to One basis cannot be made applicable to section 39 of the Act, 1948. He would submit that all the employers, whether Principal or immediate are obliged to deposit the contribution under section 39 of the Act, 1948 into the ESI Fund Account No.1. This Account is common in the entire country and the employer has to deposit its contribution by quoting the registration number with the list of its workers employed during such wage period. Mr. Vasavada submitted that this contribution is being used by the Corporation for the betterment and welfare of the poor workers and to provide numerous benefits to all the workers as enshrined under the Act across the country. He gave an illustration stating that the contribution deposited by the employer at Delhi for its workers, the benefit of the said contribution would be made available to the workers at Ahmedabad and vice versa. Having regard to the scheme, the Quid pro Quo/One to One basis is not applicable to the contribution deposited under section 39 of the Act, 1948. Mr. Vasavada submitted that all the employees working in the establishment of the appellant would stand covered under the sweep of the benevolent legislation with effect from 2008 and the benefit has to be extended to all the workers who are registered with the Corporation and even those working outside the coverage area of the Corporation.

8. Mr. Vasavada would submit that as no substantial question of law is involved in the present first appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed.

9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether there is any substantial question of law involved in this first appeal.

10. Let me straightway go to the two decisions of the Supreme Court. To start with in the case of Transport Corporation of India . The relevant para/portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow;

"22. The aforesaid settled legal position, therefore, shows that as per Section 2(9) of the Act an employee of the establishment whether working within the precincts of the main establishment or outside, if carrying on the work of the establishment would be covered by the sweep of the Act moment the main establishment is covered by the Act. It is easy to visualise that after the aforesaid amendment by Act 44 of 1966 Section 2(9) would cover employees working anywhere in branches in connection with the purchase of raw- materials or distribution or sale of products or dealing with administration of the establishment though stationed outside the precincts of the main establishment.

Accordingly, the employees who were connected with the administration of the Bombay branch of the appellantCorporation would be covered by the sweep of Section 2(9) after the aforesaid amendment. If that is so, it would be too incongruous to contend that though the administrative staff of the Bombay branch would be covered, employees actually working for the establishment and directly connected with its main function namely, transport of goods throughout the country and inspecting the goods to be despatched for the appellant from Bombay to outside stations and also connected with receipt and unloading of goods coming from outside Bombay for being further carried within the State of Maharashtra or outside, would not be covered by the sweep of the Act, Such an incongruous and contradictory situation cannot be countenanced by the scheme of the Act especially in the light of clear wording of the definition Section 2(9) along with its relevant attended provisions.

23. The very same definition of the term 'employee' as per Section 2(9) of the Act fell for consideration of a two Judge bench decision of this Court in Royal Talkies, Hyderabad & Ors. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, (1978) 4 SCC 204. The question before the Court in that case was whether the persons employed in canteens and cycle stands of cinema theatres could be said to be governed by the Act when the establishment covered by the Act was cinema theatre itself. Repelling the contention that employees of the canteen and cycle stand could not be treated to be employees of parent establishment namely, cinema theatre itself, it was held by Krishna Iyer, J., speaking for the Court, that the Manager of the cinema theatre would be treated to be the principal employer of these workmen also.

Considering the express provision of Section 2(9) of the Act, it was observed as under:

"...The word "employee" as defined in Section 2(9) contains two substantive parts. First he must be employed "in or in connection with the work of an establishment". The expression "in connection with the work of an establishment" represents a wide variety of workmen who may not be employed in the establishment but may be engaged only in connection with the work of the establishment. Some nexus must exist between the establishment and the work of the employee but may be a loose connection. In connection with the work of an establishment' only postulates some connection between what the employee does and the work of the establishment. He may not do anything directly for the establishment; he may not do anything statutorily obligatory in the establishment; he may not even do anything which is primary or necessary for the survival or smooth running of the establishment or integral to the adventure. It is enough if the employee does some work which is ancillary, incidental or has relevance to or link with the object of the establishment..."

It becomes, therefore, obvious that once it is found that the employees of the Bombay branch undertake transport of goods to and from Bombay which is the main work of the principal establishment at Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh, moment the main office in Andhra Pradesh is covered by the Act, the Bombay branch which is an integral part of the commercial activities of the appellant, cannot be held to be outside the sweep of the Act.

23-A We may also refer to a three Judge bench decision of this Court in Nagpur Electric Light & Power Co, Ltd. v. Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation etc, wherein this Court had an occasion to examine the width of the definition "employee" as found in Section 2(9) of the Act in connection with the factual matrix wherein persons doing non- manual work outside the factory premises claimed to be covered by the sweep of the Act by being treated as employees of the factory. Emphasising the term "employee in connection with the work of the factory" it was held that

"All the employees of the disputed categories clerks or otherwise were employed in connection with the work of the factory, that is to say, in connection with the work of transforming and transmitting electrical power. Some of the employees were not engaged in manual labour. But a person doing non-manual work can be an employee within the meaning of S.2(9Xi) if he is employed in connection with the work of the factory. The duties of he administrative staff are directly connected with the work of the factory."

In view of the aforesaid well established legal position, therefore, it has to be held that as it is seen that the main work of the appellant- Corporation is to engage in transportation of goods to and through its various branches to different parts of the country, the Bombay branch facilitating and directly connected with this main activity of the principal office and working under the complete control and supervision of the appellant's main office, cannot be treated to be beyond the sweep of the Act once employees at Bombay branch are held to be 'employees' of the appellant-Corporation. It could not be held on facts of this case that the Bombay branch was functioning as a separate and independent entity not being controlled or supervised by the Secunderabad principal office so as to enable the appellant-Corporation to contend before the authorities that its Bombay branch was not its limb and was an independent establishment by itself as if it was run by some independent transport company.

24. Before parting with the discussion on this point, it is necessary to keep in view the salient fact that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to provide benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity, employment injury and for certain other matters in relation thereto. It is enacted with a view to ensuring social welfare and for providing safe insurance cover to employees who were likely to suffer from various physical illnesses during the course of their employment. Such a beneficial piece of legislation has to be construed in its correct perspective so as to fructify the legislative intention underlying its enactment. When two views are possible on its applicability to a given set of employees, that view, which furthers the legislative intention should be preferred to the one which would frustrate it. It is difficult to appreciate how it could be contended by the appellant with any emphasis that an employee working at its head office in Secunderabad would be governed by the beneficial sweep of the Act as admittedly the head office employees are covered by the Act, but once such an employee, whether working on the administrative side or connected with the actual transportation of goods, if transferred to the Bombay branch even with his consent, cannot be governed by the beneficial provisions of the Act.

25. Dealing with this very Act, a three Judge bench of this Court in the case of The Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Venkatiah & Anr., (1964) 4 SCR 265, speaking through Gajendragadhar, J., (as he then was) held, accepting the contention of the learned counsel Mr. Dolia, that:

"....It is a piece of social legislation intended to confer specified benefits on workmen to whom it applies, and so, it would be inappropriate to attempt to construe the relevant provisions in a technical or a narrow sense. This position cannot be disputed. But in dealing with the plea raised by Mr. Dolia that the section should be liberally construed, we cannot overlook the fact that the liberal construction must ultimately flow from the words used in the section. If the words used in the section are capable of two constructions one of which is shown patently to assist the achievement of the object of the Act, courts would be justified in preferring that construction to the other which may not be able to further the object of the Act..."

As we have already seen earlier, the express phraseology of Section 2(9) of the Act defining an 'employee' read with Section 38 of the Act clearly projects the legislative intention of spreading the beneficial network of the Act sufficiently wide for covering all employees working for the main establishment covered by the Act even though actually stationed at different branches outside the State wherein the head office of he establishment is located. In any case, the said construction can reasonably flow from the aforesaid statutory provisions. If that is so, any other technical or narrower construction, even if permissible, cannot be countenanced, as that would frustrate the legislative intent underlying the enactment of such a beneficial social security scheme. "

11. In Royal Western India Turf Club Limited , the Supreme Court held as under;

"1. The questions involved for decision in these appeals are whether casual workers are covered under definition of employee as defined in Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'ESI Act') and pertaining to period for which Turf Club is liable to pay from 1978-79 or from 1987.

5. First we take up the question whether casual employees are covered within the purview of ESI Act. Section 2(9) defines "employee", the provision is extracted hereunder :

"2(9) "employee" means any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment to which this Act applies and -

(i) who is directly employed by the principal employer, on any work of, or incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work of, the factory or establishment, whether such work is done by the employee in the factory or establishment or elsewhere; or

(ii) who is employed by or through an immediate employer, on the premises of the factory or establishment or under the supervision of the principal employer or his agent on work which is ordinarily part of the work of the factory or establishment or which is preliminary to the work carried on in or incidental to the purpose of the factory or establishment; or

(iii) whose services are temporarily lent or let on hire to the principal employer by the person with whom the person whose services are so lent or let on hire has entered into a contract of service; and includes any person employed for wages on any work connected with the administration of the factory or establishment or any part, department or branch thereof or with the purchase of raw materials for, or the distribution or sale of the products of, the factory or establishment or any person engaged as apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961), and includes such person engaged as apprentice whose training period is extended to any length of time but does not include - any member of [the Indian] naval, military or air forces; or

(b) any person so employed whose wages (excluding remuneration for overtime work) exceed such wages as may be prescribed by the Central Government a month:

Provided that an employee whose wages (excluding remuneration for overtime work) exceed such wages as may be prescribed by the Central Government at any time after (and not before) the beginning of the contribution period, shall continue to be an employee until the end of that period;" The definition of "employee" is very wide. A person who is employed for wages in the factory or establishment on any work of, or incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work is covered. The definition brings various types of employees within its ken. The Act is a welfare legislation and is required to be interpreted so as to ensure extension of benefits to the employees and not to deprive them of the same which are available under the Act.

6. Section 39 deals with the contribution payable under the Act with respect to the employee in respect of each "wage period" shall ordinarily fall due on the last day of the wage period, and where an employee is employed for "part" of the wage period or is employed under two or more employers during the same wage period, the contributions shall fall due on such days as may be specified in the Regulations. Section 39 is extracted hereunder :

"39. Contributions. - (1) The contribution payable under this Act in respect of an employee shall comprise contribution payable by the employer (hereinafter referred to as the employer's contribution) and contribution payable by the employee (hereinafter referred to as the employee's contribution) and shall be paid to the Corporation.

(2) The contribution shall be paid at such rates as may be prescribed by the Central Government:

Provided that the rates so prescribed shall not be more than the rates which were in force immediately before the commencement of the Employees' State Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1989.

(3) The wage period in relation to an employee shall be the unit in respect of which all contributions shall be payable under this Act. (4) The contributions payable in respect of each [wage period] shall ordinarily fall due on the last day of the [wage period], and where an employee is employed for part of the [wage period], or is employed under two or more employers during the same [wage period], the contributions shall fall due on such days as may be specified in the regulations. (5)(a) If any contribution payable under this Act is not paid by the principal employer on the date on which such contribution has become due, he shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate as may be specified in the regulations till the date of its actual payment: Provided that higher interest specified in the regulations shall not exceed the lending rate of interest charged by any scheduled bank.

(b) Any interest recoverable under clause (a) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under section 45C to section 45-I." It is apparent from section 39 that an employee who is employed for a part of the wage period is also covered for the purposes of contribution.

The definition of the term "employee" in section 2(9) is also wide enough to cover casual employees who are employed for part of wage period. It is also provided in section 39(5) that in case contribution is not paid, it shall carry 12% interest per annum or such higher rate as may be specified in the Regulations till the date of actual payment and the amount is recoverable as arrears of land revenue.

7. Section 42 deals with the general provisions as to payment of contributions. It is provided in section 42 that no employee's contribution shall be payable by or on behalf of an employee whose average daily wages are below such wages as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Sub- section (2) of section 42 again provides that contribution of the employer as well as the employee shall be payable by the principal employer for the wage period in respect of the whole or part of which wages are payable to the employee and not otherwise.

The provision does not prescribe that employee has to work for a particular period for availing benefit of the said provision.

8. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the Turf Club, on the definitions of wages and wage period. Sections 2(22) and 2(23) dealing with wages and wage period are as follows :

"2(22). "wages" means all remuneration paid or payable in cash to an employee, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled and includes any payment to an employee in respect of any period of authorised leave, lock-out, strike which is not illegal or layoff and other additional remuneration, if any, paid at intervals not exceeding two months, but does not include -

(a) any contribution paid by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund, or under this Act;

(b) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession;

(c) any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment; or

(d) any gratuity payable on discharge ;

(23) "wage period" in relation to an employee means the period in respect of which wages are ordinarily payable to him whether in terms of the contract of employment, express or implied or otherwise;" A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that it would cover the "casual employees" employed for a few days on a work of perennial nature and wages as defined in section 2(22) and wage period as defined in section 2(23) does not exclude the wages payable to casual workers. They cannot be deprived of the beneficial provisions of the Act.

11. This Court in Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madras v. South India Flour Mills (P) Ltd., (1986) AIR SC 1686, has overruled the decision of the Madras High Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Gnanambikai Mills Ltd., (1974) 2 LLJ 530 (Mad.) in which the High Court laid down that though casual employee may come within the definition of the term "employee" under section 2(9) of the Act, yet they may not be entitled to sickness benefits in case their employment is less than the benefit period or contribution period and that it does not appear from the Act that casual employee should be brought within its purview. This Court while overruling decision of High Court held thus :

"8. Section 39 provides for contributions payable under the Act. Sub- section (4) of Section 39 provides as follows: "The contributions payable in respect of each week shall ordinarily fall due on the last day of the week, and where an employee is employed for part of the week, or is employed under two or more employers during the same week, the contributions shall fall due on such days as may be specified in the regulations."

9. Sub-section (4) clearly indicates employment of a casual employee when it provides "and where an employee is employed for part of the week". When an employee is employed for part of a week, he cannot but be a casual employee. We may also refer to sub-section (3) of Section 42 relating to general provisions as to payment of contributions. Sub-section (3) reads as follows:

"Where wages are payable to an employee for a portion of the week, the employer shall be liable to pay both the employer's contribution and the employee's contribution for the week in full but shall be entitled to recover from the employee the employee's contribution."

10. Sub-section (3), inter alia, deals with employer's liability to pay both employer's contribution and the employee's contribution where wages are payable to an employee for a portion of the week. One of the circumstances when wages may be payable to an employee for a portion of the week is that an employee is employed for less than a week, that is to say, a casual employee. Thus Section 39(4) and Section 42(3) clearly envisage the case of casual employees. In other words, it is the intention of the Legislature that the casual employees should also be brought within the purview of the Act. It is true that a casual employee may not be entitled to sickness benefit as pointed out in the case of Gnanambikai Mills, (1974) LabIC 798(Mad) . But, in our opinion, that cannot be a ground for the view that the intention of the Act is that casual employees should not be brought within the purview of the Act. Apart from sickness benefit there are other benefits under the Act including disablement benefit to which a casual employee will be entitled under Section 51 of the Act.

Section 51 does not lay down any benefit period or contribution period. There may again be cases when casual employees are employed over the contribution period and, in such cases, they will be entitled to even the sickness benefit. In the circumstances, we hold that casual employees come within the purview of the Act. In Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad, (1977) 1 LLJ 54, Regional Director, ESIC, Bangalore v. Davangere Cotton Mills, (1977) 2 LLJ 404, and Employees State Insurance Corporation, Chandigarh. v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., (1980) LabIC 1064, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Karnataka High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court have rightly taken the view that casual employees are employees within the meaning of the term "employee" as defined in Section 2(9) of the Act and, accordingly, come within the purview of the Act.

14. Coming to the appeal preferred by the ESI Corporation raising question that the payment should have been ordered with effect from 1978-79 onwards instead of 1987 as in view of notification dated 18.9.1978, there was no room to doubt that departments in question of the Turf Club were also covered under ESI Act. In our opinion, the notification of 1978 is clear and has to be given full effect, for earlier period also the consent terms indicated that various other departments of Turf Club were covered under the notification of 1968. Reliance on the decision of this Court in Hyderabad Race Club case so as to waive the contribution from 1975 to 1986, is not available as in the instant case there was no doubt as to applicability of ESI Act in view of the specific notification issued in 1978. The provisions of ESI Act were applied to various departments of Turf Club w.e.f. 1968. The decision in Hyderabad Race Club case turned on its own different factual matrix

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

. In this case, it was clear from 1968 itself that Turf Club was covered under ESI Act as is apparent from consent terms. The notification dated 18.9.1978 included other left out departments of race club. The provisions of ESI Act were complied with by Turf Club w.e.f. 1968. The High Court on the facts of the case has erred in quashing the demand for the contribution with effect from 1978 till 1987. 15. In our opinion, the Turf Club is liable to make the contribution as per notification dated 18.9.1978 along with interest at such rate as provided in the Act and the Rules till the date of actual payment. Let the amount be contributed within a period of three months from today. Consequently, the appeals preferred by ESI Corporation are allowed and the ones preferred by Turf Club are dismissed with costs of Rs. 2 lakhs payable to the ESI Corporation. " 12. Thus, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Transport Corporation of India makes it clear that once the Act is made applicable to the factory/establishment, then all its employees are required to be covered under the Act so as to entitle them to seek necessary benefits under the Act. I do not find any merit in the contention of Mr. Dave that as seven employees are the field workers, they could not have been included along with those seventeen employees working in the premises of the establishment. As per section 2(9) of the Act, an employee of the establishment whether working within the precincts of the main establishment or outside, if carrying on the work of the establishment, would be covered by the sweep of the Act moment the main establishment is covered by the Act. 13. The Decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. makes it clear that the provisions of the ESI Act will be made applicable from the date of the notification and the employer who fulfills the criteria laid down thereunder is duty bound to comply with the provisions of the Act. 14. I am at one with Mr. Vasavada, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation so far as his contention that no principle of Quid pro Quo/One to One basis is applicable under section 39 of the Act is concerned. 15. Therefore, it is clear that there is neither a substantial question of law nor a substantial question of fact involved in these appeals to bring the appeals within the scope of Section 82 of the Act. Section 82 Sub-section (2) provides the scope for an appeal to the High Court only if it involves a substantial question of law and hence, an appeal does not lie in any of these cases. Even otherwise the impugned judgments are not such as to capacitate the High Court to interfere. As held in Chaube Jagdish Prasad v. Ganga Prasad Chaturvedi, (1959) AIR SC 492, in a matter, of course, arising under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if a subordinate Court had jurisdiction to make the order it made and has not acted in breach of any provision of law or committed any error of procedure which is material and may have affected the ultimate decision, then the High Court has no power to interfere. The principle squarely applies to the facts of the present appeal and the appeal should, therefore, fail. 16. In the result, this first appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
O R