EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION versus BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 656 · Decided: 17-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 656 
A 
.. 
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION 
v. 
BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD & ANR. 
B 
(Civil Appeal No. 8335 of 2004) 
SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
-+-
c 
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 
• 
ss. 45-A and 75 - Employers contribution towards 
Employees' State insurance -
Notice to employer -
Challenged before Employees' State Insurance Court -
D Employees or their representative not made party - Held: 
+ 
Principles of natural justice have been violated - Judgment 
and order of High Court as well as that of the Employees' 
State Insurance Court are set aside and matter remitted to 
•, I 
Employees' State Insurance Court for deciding the same after 
E impleading the workers of the Board or their Union in a 
representative capacity - Since, the case pertains to the year· 
1987, the Employees' State Insurance Courl would decide the; 
+ 
same expeditiously - Patty - Natural justice. 
..1~0~t > 
F 
Fertilizer & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. vs. Regional 
Director, ESIC & Ors. 2009 (11) SCALE 766, relied on 
I 
~ 
J l_ • 
Case Law Reference: 
•· 
r-
' 
1 
2009(11) SCALE 766 
relied on 
Para 6 
·. -''i r. . . 
G 
CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. )lqic• · 
8335 of 2004. 
~· 
From the Judgment & Order dated 14.11.2002 of the High 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in F.A.O. No. 291 of 1987 . 
• 
4 
H 
656 
~MPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION v. 657 
. 
. 
BHAKRA SEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD & ANR. 
~ 
WITH 
A 
; 
Civil Appeal No.8336 of 2004. 
V.J. Francis and Anupam Mishra for the Appellant. 
Om Prakash Mishra and Ghan Shyam Vasisht for the 
B 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
c 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8335 OF 2004 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
This appe~I has been filed against the judgm~nt and order 
D 
+ dated 14.11.2002 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi 
whereby the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 herein has 
.,,. 
been allowed anc~ it has been declared that the respondent No . 
1 Board is not liable to make any contribution towards the 
Employees State Insurance in respect of the impugned 
demand. 
E 
-44 
The facts in detail have been given in the impugned 
-.1 judgment and hence we need not repeat the same herein. 
It appears that the appellant had issued a notice under F 
Section 45-A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 
(hereinafter for short 'the Act') for making employer's 
contribution towards the employees state insurance. The 
respondent No.1 Board challenged that notice before the 
Employees State Insurance Court, Delhi. It appears that neither 
G 
.,. 
the workers concerned of the respondent No. 1 Board nor any 
-~ one of them in representative capacity were made parties in 
the petition under Section 75 of the Act before the Employees 
State lnsurance Court or before the High Court. 
The Employees State Insurance Court decided in favour 
H 
658 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A of the appellant and against the respondent No. 1 Board and 
directed the respondent No. 1 to pay its contribution towards 
""' 
the employees insurance. Against the said order of the 
Employees State Insurance Court, the respondent No. 1-Board 
filed an appeal under Section 82 of the Act before the High 
B Court and the High Court has allowed the said appeal holding 
that the sub-stations of the respondent No. 1 Board are not 
factories within the meaning of the Act. Hence this appeal by 
special leave. 
... 
c 
This Court has recently held in the case of Fertilizer & 
Chemicals Tranvancore Ltd. vs. Regional Director, ESIC & 
· Ors. 2009 ( 11 )SCALE 766 as under : 
"5. It may be noted that in its petition before the Employees 
Insurance Court, the appellant herein only impleaded the 
·' 0 
Employees State Insurance Corporation and the District 
Collectors of Alleppey, Palaghat and Cannanore as the 
+ 
respondents but did not implead even a single workman 
as a respondent. 
.... 
E 
6. Labour statutes are meant for the benefit of the 
workmen. Hence, ordinarily in all cases under labour 
statutes the workmen, or at least some of them in a 
representative capacity, or the trade-union representing the 
... 
concerned workmen must be made a party. Hence, in our 
y. 
F 
opinion the appellant {petitioner before the Employees 
. Insurance Court) should have impleaded atleast some of 
the persons concerned, as respondents. 
7. The case of the appellant was that, in fact, none of the 
conce

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.