E.S.I. CORPORATION, REP. BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR versus M/S. ENDOCRINOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY LAB

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 159 · Decided: 02-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HIMA KOHLI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 159 : 2023 INSC 665 
159
CASE DETAILS
E.S.I. CORPORATION, REP. BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
v.
M/S. ENDOCRINOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY LAB
(Civil Appeal No.3368 of 2012)
AUGUST 02, 2023
[HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration : Date from which the respondent 
establishment, a pathological laboratory will be covered under the 
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948.
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – s.1(5) – Notiﬁ cation 
dated 06.09.2007 issued in terms of the power conferred u/s.1(5) –High 
Court held that the provisions of the 1948 Act will be applicable to the 
respondent w.e.f. 06.09.2007 and not from 22.11.2002 – Legality:
Held : Respondent would be covered under the Act in terms of the 
Notiﬁ cation dtd.06.09.2007 issued by the Government of Kerala covering 
medical institutions including pathological laboratories from that date, 
where 20 or more persons were employed – The Notiﬁ cation was issued 
in terms of the power conferred u/s.1(5) of the Act in consultation with 
the Corporation and with the approval of the Central Government – If the 
pathological laboratories were already covered under the Act, as urged by 
the appellant-Corporation, there was no occasion to issue such a notiﬁ cation 
– Order passed by the High Court is in terms of the aforesaid notiﬁ cation 
directing coverage of the respondent establishment from that date onwards, 
as undisputedly, 20 or more persons were found to be employed in the 
establishment – Appellant argued that the respondent would fall within 
the term “shop” and the same is covered in terms of the notiﬁ cation dtd. 
27.05.1976 –The argument that the respondent should be deemed to be 
covered in terms of the said notiﬁ cation r/w the Circular dtd. 22.11.2002, 
rejected – Appeal dismissed.[Paras 10, 12-16]
160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – ss.1(4), 2(12), 14(AA) – 
Respondent establishment, a pathological laboratory if covered u/s.1(4) 
providing that the Act shall apply to all factories (including factories 
belonging to the Government) other than seasonal factories: 
Held : No – The term “factory” has been defined u/s.2(12) – 
“manufacturing process” has been deﬁ ned in s.14 (AA) to give it a meaning 
as assigned to it u/s.2(k), Factories Act, 1948 – Respondent establishment 
will not be covered u/s.1(4) as it will not fall within the deﬁ nition of a 
“factory”, since no manufacturing process is carried on therein. [Paras 
7(iii), (iv) and 8]
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  : Civil Appeal No.3368 of 
2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2008 of the High Court 
of Kerela at Ernakulam in IA No.4 of 2008.
Appearances:
Kumar Rajesh Singh, Mrs. Niranjana Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Ritika Sinha, Siddhartha Jha, Advs. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT/ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. Order dated 21.08.2008 passed by the High Court of Kerala has 
been challenged by the Corporation1 by which the appeal2 ﬁ led by the 
respondent was allowed. It was held that the provisions of the Act3 will be 
applicable to the respondent establishment w.e.f. 06.09.2007 and not from 
22.11.20024.
1 
T e Employees State Insurance Corporation
2 
Ins. App. No.4 of 2008(A)
3 
T e Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinaf er ‘the Act’)
4 
Wrongly typed in the impugned order as 24.11.2002
161
E.S.I. CORPORATION, REP. BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR v. 
M/s. ENDOCRINOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY LAB [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
2. Brieﬂ y stated, as per the facts available on record, the respondent 
establishment is a pathological laboratory. Inspection of the premises of 
the respondent was carried out by the Inspector on 01.04.1999. Having 
found that there were 19 employees working in the establishment, a show 
cause notice was issued to the respondent. The respondent establishment 
challenged coverage of the establishment by ﬁ ling an application under 
Sections 75 and 77 of the Act before the Employees’ Insurance Court. The 
Court vide order dated 19.04.2007, passed in I.C. No.13/2003 declared 
that the establishment of the respondent is a ‘shop’ as per Section 1(5) of 
the Act and the provisions of the Act would extend to the respondent w.e.f. 
22.11.2002. A review application5 ﬁ led by the respondent before the E.S.I. 
Court, was dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2007. The orders of the E.S.I. 
Court were challenged by the respondent b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.