LexDELHI GYMKHANA CLUB LTD. versus EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2014] 14 S.C.R. 1082 DELHI GYMKHANA CLUB LTD. v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN. (Civil Appeal No. 2415 of 2003) B OCTOBER 28, 2014 [T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] · Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948: s.2(12) as stood prior to Amendment Act 2911989- Expressions 'factory' and C 'manufacturing process' - Explained - Extending of · provisions of the Act to persons working in kitchen-catering division of Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd.- ES/ Act is a beneficial piece of social welfare legislation aimed at securing the well-being of employees and court will not adopt D a narrow interpretation which will have the effect of defeating the objects of the Act - Kitchen is an integral part of the club which caters to the needs of its members and their guests, on payment of money thereby making the appellant- club fall within the definition of 'factory' u/s 2(12) of ES/ Act. - E Order of ES/ Corporation u/s 45-A of ES/ Act, holding that appellant club is covered under provisions of ES! Act, upheld- Factories Act, 1948- s.2(k)(I). The instant appeal arose out of the order. dated 4.8.1986 passed by ESI Corporation holding the F appellant-club as covered under the Employees' State . Insurance Act, 1948 and directing it to pay the required contribution in respect of its employees for the period 1.2.1980 to 31.8.1985. Dismissing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1.1 Even though the terms "kitchen" and ·H "catering" of a club may not be called a factory in common parlance, having regard to the definition of "manufacturing process" and that ESI Act is a beneficial legislation, a liberal interpretation has to be adopted. 1082 DELHI GYMKHANA CLUB LTD. v. EMPLOYEES STATE 1083 INSURANCE CORPN. Therefore, so long as manufacturing process is carried A on with or without the aid of power by employing more than twenty persons for wages, it would come within the meaning of "factory" as defined u/s 2(12) of the ESI Act. [Para 20][1093-F-H] The Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. v. Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation (2014) Vol. 9 Scale 177; Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Hyderabad Race Club, (2004) LLR 769 (SC)= (2004) 6 SCC 191- relied on. Cricket Club of India, Bombayv. Employees' State Insurance Corporation (1998) LLR 729 (Bombay HC), Employee~' State Insurance Corporation v. Jalandhar Gymkhana Club, (1992) LLR 733 (P & H HC) - approved. 1.2 Admittedly more than 20 persons are employed in preparation of foodstuffs and ·serving in the kitch~n catering division of the appellant club and those . employees are paid salary, wages, gratuity etc. B c D Admittedly, the club maintains a kitchen, refrigerator, E geyser and other equipments are used in making and preparation of foodstuffs wherein power is used. [Para 12][1090-B-C] 1.3 The appellant-club is catering to the elite people of Delhi. Appellant-club provides various services to its F members and organizes several sports activities. Wide range of activities of the club are associated With the large number of staff. Kitchen is an integral part of the club which caters to the needs of its members and their guests, on payment of money either in cash or by card, G where the food items are put for sale, thereby making the appellant-club fall within the definition of 'factory' u/s 2(12) of the ESI Act. There is no reason to keep the employees of the appellant-club out of the welfare H 1084 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R. A coverage of the beneficial legislation like ESI Act. B c [Para 13 and 17][1090-F-G; 1092-D-E] G L. Hotels Limited and Ors. v. TC. Sarin and Anr. 1993 (1) Suppl. SCR 808: (1993) 4 sec 363; Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant v. Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation And Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 61 ; Transport Corporation of India v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation &Anr. 1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 393: (2000) 1 sec 332 and Cochin Shipping Co. v. ES/ Corporation 1992 (3) SCR 909: (1992) 4 SCC 245 - relied on. CASE LAW REFERENCE 1993 (1) Suppl. SCR 808 . relied on para 14 D. (2009) 9 sec 61 relied on para 15 1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 393 1992 (3) SCR 909 (2014) Vol.9 Scale 177 relied on relied on relied on para 19 para 19 para 21 E (2004) LLR 769 (SC) = (2004) 6 sec 191 relied on para 22 (1998) LLR 729 (Bo!llbay HC) approved para 22 (1992) LLR 733 (P & H HC). approved para 22 F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2415 of 200
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.