SRINIVASA RICE MILL Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-31
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on November 10,2006

SRINIVASA RICE MILL Appellant
VERSUS
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION V. M/S. U.P. HOTEL AND RESTAURANTS LTD. AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
E.S.I. CORPORATION V. SUBBARAYA ADIGA [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED MADRAS VS. WORKERS [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. BALAJI WEAVING MILLS [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. M M SURI AND ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR E S I CORPORATION VS. KARNATAKA ASBESTOS CEMENT PRODUCTS [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. OMPRAKASH BABURAO KAMDI [LAWS(BOM)-2021-7-59] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL GAURANGBHAI NARANBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-5-45] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR [LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-240] [REFERRED TO]
ARYAN BUFF MANUFACTURING CO VS. REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESIC [LAWS(ALL)-2009-12-87] [FOLLOWED ON]
BEECO ELECTRICAL INDIA VS. PASHCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2012-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYEE STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. BATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-1-92] [REFERRED TO]
SUMANDEEP VIDYAPEETH VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 EXEMPTIONS [LAWS(GJH)-2021-3-119] [REFERRED TO]
U.P. COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD. VS. EMOPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(ALL)-2022-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. MALLIKARJUNA RICE INDUSTRIES VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
THE MANAGEMENT OF ASHOK LEYLAND, HOSUR VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, SALEM [LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-394] [REFERRED TO]
GAYATRI CHETNA KENDRA & ANR VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ANR [LAWS(CAL)-2019-3-61] [REFERRED TO]
POSHAK INDUSTRIES VS. EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(MAD)-2023-8-68] [REFERRED TO]
Ashu Products represented by its Proprietor Ashwin K. Sood VS. Secretary to The Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs Government of India, The Regional Director E.S.I. Corporation and The Deputy Commissioner [LAWS(KAR)-2010-4-161] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL COTTAGE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-303] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL COTTAGE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2019-10-164] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SERVICE STATION VS. ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESI CORPORATION [LAWS(APH)-2007-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
ICICI BANK LTD VS. DIGAMBER VAMAN GURJAR [LAWS(NCD)-2023-7-45] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGER LOCAL OFFICE SALEM ESI CORPORATION SWARNAPURI SALEM VS. M/S NARASUS COFFEE COMPANY SALEM [LAWS(MAD)-2011-7-356] [REFERRED TO]
ICICI BANK LTD VS. VISHNU KRISHNA PATIL [LAWS(NCD)-2023-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT M S ALMECH ENTERPRISES COIMBATORE VS. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-506] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. SUNIL PAI [LAWS(BOM)-2015-8-285] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION LTD. VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (A.O.D.) [LAWS(GAU)-2018-3-52] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Applicability of the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short "the Act") to the rice mills situate in the State of Andhra Pradesh arises for question in these matters. Appellants are owners of various rice mills situate in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The operation in these rice mills is said to be seasonal. The Act admittedly was made applicable in relation to the rice mills with effect from 1.8.2000. Prior to coming into force of the Act, inspections were carried out and allegedly it was found that in the mills more than 10 employees were employed. They were allegedly asked to comply with the provisions of the Act. Without, however, giving an opportunity to explain as to why they have not made any contribution towards insurance, by a notice dated 20th October, 2000, they were asked to show cause stating:
"I therefore call upon to explain the reasons if any as to why you should not be prosecuted, within a week of receipt of this letter. If no reply is received within stipulated time it will be presumed that you have no valid reasons to explain and further action will be taken accordingly without any further notice."

(3.)Suits were filed before the Employees' Insurance Court under Section 75(1)(g) of the Act. The question which inter alia was raised therein was as to whether the aforementioned notice was legal. By reason of a judgment and order dated 30.6.2003, the learned Employees' Insurance Court dismissed the applications. Aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied therewith, appeals were preferred before the High Court purported to be in terms of Section 82 of the Act. The said appeals, by reason of the impugned order, have been dismissed.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.