PARAMOUNT PRESS Vs. E S I CORPORATION REP
LAWS(APH)-1992-12-34
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 02,1992

PARAMOUNT PRESS Appellant
VERSUS
E.S.I.CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, HYDERABAD Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. SCIENTIFIC FERTILIZER CO PVT LTD [LAWS(APH)-1995-11-53] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri - (1.)This appeal is filed under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). The appellant is an establishment. The Employees State Insurance Corporation served an order of coverage dated 16-7-1985 on the appellant and demanded contributions under the provisions of the Act. The appellant challenged the validity of the said order in an application under Section 75 of the Act before the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman Industrial tribunal, Hyderabad, in E.I.No. 51/85. On 30-4-1986, the said court dismissed the petition. Challenging the correctness of the said order, this appeal is filed.
(2.)Sri.M.Pandurangarao, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that Notification No. 102 dated 26-3-1975 issued under sub-section (5) of Section 1 of the Act in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette has enlarged the definition of 'factory' as defined in sub-section (12) of Section 2 of the Act, therefore it is invalid in law and as the number of persons employed by the petitioner is less than ten, the Act, does not apply to the petitioner. Sri. I.A. Naidu, the learned Standing Counsel for the E.S.I. Corporation, on the other hand, contends that the Notification does not in any way enlarge the scope of the definition of 'factory'; by the notification the Act is mads applicable to establishments specified therein under Section 1 (5), so the notification cannot be questioned as being contrary to Section 2 (12). As the number of persons working in the petitioner-establishment is ten, the Act applies to the petitioner.
(3.)On the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties the following two questions fall for consideration: (1) Whether notification No. 102 dated 26th March, 1975 enlarged the definition of 'factory' under the Act and is, therefore, bad in law; (2) Whether the petitioner-establishment is covered by the Act.
;


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