FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD versus REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESIC & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 437 · Decided: 20-08-2009 · 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
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 437 
FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. 
A 
v. 
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESIC & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 917-918 of 2004) 
AUGUST 20, 2009 
8 
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
"( .J 
LABOUR LAW: 
c 
EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948 : 
ss.45-A and 75 - Parties before Employees' Insurance 
Court - Demand notice for employees' contribution in respect 
I 
of head loaders challenged by employer before Employees' D 
~ 
_.J. 
Insurance Court - Neither workmen nor their representative 
body made party - Employees' Insurance Court holding that 
identities of workmen not determinable as different workers 
stated to report for work on different days, and as such, it was 
impossible to register workers under the ES/ Scheme -
E 
However, it directed the ES/ Corporation to work out modalities 
in close cooperation with employer to bring workers in different 
depots under ES/ Scheme - HELD: Principal beneficiary of 
A 
the Act is workman - Labour statutes are meant for benefit of 
'if 
workmen - Ordinarily, in all cases under labour statutes 
workmen or the trade union representing them must be made 
F 
a party - Though s. 75 of the Act does not mention who will 
be the parties before the Employees' Insurance Court, but 
since the determination by the said Court is a quasi-judicial 
determination, natural justice requires that any party which 
may be adversely affected or may suffer civil consequences G 
'-· _..__,.. 
by such determination, must be heard before passing any 
order by the authority/court - Petitioner should have 
-
impfeaded at least some of the workmen as respondents -
In a petition uls 75 employer has not only to implead ESIC 
437 
H 
., 
' -
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A but also at least some of the workers concerned in 
+ 
representative capacity or their trade union - If that is not done 
and a decision is given in favour of employer, the same will 
be violative of principles of natural justice - Besides, in the 
instant case, Employees' Insurance Court has not determined 
B the question as to whether the workmen concerned were 
employees of the petitioner and were entitled to benefit of the 
Act - Order of High Court and Employees' Insurance Court 
set aside - Matter remitted to Employees' Insurance Court to 
~., 
decide it afresh after impleading at least some of the workmen 
c in representative capacity or their trade union and giving 
opportunity to all parties - Principle of natural justice - Party. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 917-
918 of 2004. 
D 
From the Judgment & Order dated 30.10.2002 of the High 
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in MFA No. 19 of 1994 and MFA 
... 
No. 921 of 1993 (C). 
C.N. Sree Kumar, P.R. Nayak, D. Prashar for the 
E Appellant 
G. Prakash, B. Anand, V.J. Francis, Anupam Mishra for 
the Respondents. 
... 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
'¥ 
F 
ORDER 
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
2. These appeals have been filed against the common 
G impugned judgment and order dated 30.10.2002 of the High 
Court of Kerala·at Ernakulam whereby-the appeal filed by the 
respondent-Employees State Insurance Corporation 
-4. ... 
(hereinafter for short the 'ESIC') under Section 82(2) of the 
Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter for short 'the 
H Act') has been allowed and the appeal filed by the appellant 
FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. v. 439 
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESIC & ORS. 
-+· 
herein has been dismissed. 
A 
3. It appears that a demand notice was sent against the 
appellant company under Section 45A of the Act in respect of 
the employers contribution under the Act. The appellant 
challenged the said demand notice by filing a petition under B 
Section 75 of the Act before the Employees Insurance Court, 
Alleppey. The Employees Insurance Court in its order dated 
._ -I 
4.2.1993 made the following observations:-
"12. If reliance is made on the rational laid down by the 
High Court in the abovesaid decisions it is very clear that c 
the identities of the employees should be an essential 
factor for bringing under coverage employees and paying 
contribution in respect of them. Here, in this case, because 
of the peculiar nature of the work arrangement, at Depots, 
it is impossible to register an employee engaged in the D 
.J 
loading and unloading work under the ESI Scheme. If there 
is requirement, a group of headload workers will come and 
they do the work collectively
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.