EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION HYDERABAD Vs. SOUTHERN EASTERN ROADWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under S. 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 is at the instance of the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent in E.I. Case No. 129 of 1978. The petitioner in E.I. Case No. 129 of 1978. The petitioner in E.I. Case No. 129 of 1978 filed petition under S. 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act for a declaration that the provisions of the Act and the notification No. 102 dated 26/03/1975 issued thereunder are not applicable to the petitioner and the orders of the respondent therein dated 1/11/1976 and 26/02/1976 are illegal and without jurisdiction. The averments in support of the petition are that the petitioner is a transport company engaged in the business of transporting goods, the head office of which is at Calcutta. The Company has several branches all over India, one among whom is the petitioner. All the branches are controlled administratively and financially by the head office at Calcutta and as such each of the branches is a separate and independent unit having no connection whatsoever with the other branches and at no time 20 or more persons are employed for wages by the petitioner in its branch office. The respondent corporation issued notice to the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner is liable for coverage. The petitioner cannot be treated as a Motor Transport establishment as it is only a Motor Transport undertaking registered as such under the Motor Transport Workers Act. Further the petitioner is not liable for coverage unless it is further proved that 20 or more persons are employed for wages on any one of the preceding 12 months. At no time 20 or more persons have been employed by the petitioner and hence the action on the part of the respondent Corporation in seeking to cover the petitioner is illegal.

(2.) The respondent Corporation filed a written statement that the petitioner is Road Motor Transport establishment, the head office of which is at Calcutta. There are 5 zonal offices situated at Hyderabad, Bangalore, New Delhi and Assam in addition to number of branches situated all over the country. The petitioner is one such zonal office situated at Hyderabad having four branches within the limits of twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. Eight persons are employed in the zonal office at Hyderabad whereas six persons are employed in Feelkhana branch, two persons in Secunderabad branch, 13 persons in Miralam tank branch and one person in Sanathnagar branch for wages. The petitioner establishment being a zonal office, is the controlling office for all the 85 branches situated in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa part of Maharashtra and Karnataka. The employment strength of the petitioner of the branches situated within the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad is 30 and as such the requirement of sub-clause (iv) of clause III of G.O. Ms. No. 788. Health dated 25/09/1974 read with G.O. Ms. No. 297 Health dated 25/03/1975 and S. 1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act are satisfied. The petitioner cannot avoid coverage under the provisions of the Act as the employment strength in all the branches has to be taken into account. The petitioner did not comply with the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act and therefore notice was issued intimating that the contribution payable will have to be assessed on ad hoc basis if the petitioner fails to pay contribution. The petitioner paid the contribution and case forward with this petition questioning the coverage. The petitioner establishment is a Road Motor Transport establishment having regard to the nature of the business carried on by the petitioner. As all the necessary ingredients are present to cover the petitioner establishment, the coverage cannot be questioned.

(3.) On these pleadings the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the petitioner Roadways is liable to be covered by the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act ? 2. To what relief ?