JAMSHEDPUR BLOOD BANK (JBB) Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was served with a demand notice dated 18.06.2007 issued under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act of 1948) demanding Rs. 4,99,820/- which is amount of contribution for the period from April, 2002 to April, 2007. The petitioner challenged the said demand notice by preferring this writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4810 of 2007 which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge vide judgement dated 27.09.2012 holding that petitioner who is running a Blood Bank is covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 because of the reason that the Blood Bank falls under the definition of "Factory" under Clause (12) of Section 2 of the Act of 1948. Learned Single Judge also held that in view of specific coverage of the petitioner's unit under the definition of "Factory" under Clause (12) of Section 2 of the Act of 1943, no further notification was required so as to include the petitioner's establishment or the similar establishment under the coverage of the Act of 1948.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan vehemently submitted that appellant is a charitable institution and running a Blood Bank for the purpose of its own employees and is not charging any amount from any employee for the blood given by the Blood bank. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that they are also giving blood from their Blood Bank to various other hospitals for which also they are not charging any consideration. It is also submitted that there is a provision of seeking exemption from the applicability of the ESI Act of 1948 in the ESI Act of 1948 itself. However, in the petitioner's writ petition, since interim order was granted, therefore, the petitioner neither paid the contribution nor sought any exemption from the applicability of the Act of 1948.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant seriously questioned the finding of the learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge held that the petitioner's Blood Bank is a "Factory" as it is engaged in the manufacturing process as defined under the Factories Act, 1948 (read with Section 2(14)(AA) of the ESI Act of 1948). It is also submitted that the decision of the Gujarat High Court delivered in the case of Subodh S. Shah & others Vs. Director Food & Drugs Control Office, Ahmedabad, 1997 AIR(Guj) 83 has been considered by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors. Vs. Duncan Gleneagles Hospital Ltd. and Anr., 2005 106 FLR 1029 and also reported by ,. In said judgment of Duncan Gleneagles Hospital Ltd. and Anr. it has been specifically held that Blood Bank catering to the needs of the patients admitted in the hospitals and to the hospitals attached to the Blood Bank are not covered under the ESI Act of 1948.