LexHINDU JEA BAND, JAIPUR versus REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, JAIPUR ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• ·I --+ - -)c HINDU JEA BAND, JAIPUR v. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, JAIPUR ETC. FEBRUARY 20, 1987 [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] Employees State Insurance, Act, 1948, section 1(5)-Whether the power conferred under section 1(5) of the Act on the State -Government to extend all or any of the provisions of the Act to other Establishments in the State suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of essential legislative powers. Notification issued by the Rajasthan State dated 20.9.1975 under section 1(5) of the E.S.I. Act, whereby shops in which 20 or more persons had been employed for wages on any day of the preceding 12 months were also brought under the purview of the Act with effect from 26.10.1975-Whether the place where business of supplying the services of musicians or band players a "shop"-Whether the business being intermittent or seasonal, offends Articles 14, 19(J)(g) and 21 of the Constitution-Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, sections 1(4), 2(12). All the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 were extended with effect from 26. 10.1975, to certain classes of estab- lishments and areas in the State of Rajasthan, by virtue of a Notification dated September 20, 1975 issued under sub-section (5) of section 1 of A B c D E the Act. Item 3(iii) in the Schedule to the said Notification brought within the purview of the Act shops in which 20 or more persons had F been employed for wages on any day of the preceding 12 months. M/s Hindu Jea Band, Jaipur had employed 23 persons on wages during the relevant period, but did not comply with the provisions of the Act. The demand made by the authorities of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation to make contributions as required under the Act G with effect from 26.10.1975 was questioned by M/s Hindu Jea Band by a petition under section 75 of the Act before the Employees State Insu- rance Court on two grounds; (i) that the place where it was carrying on business was not a shop; and (ii) that its business being one of the intermittent or seasonal character of the Act could not be extended to its business. Having lost the case before the E.S.I. Court and in appeal H 377 A B 378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R. before the High Court, the petitioner has come in appeal before the Supreme Court. The petitioner also filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the Notification as violative of Arti- cles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, and section 1(5) of the Act itself as suffering from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative powers. Dismissing the petitions, the Court 1 • I HELD: 1. The place, where the petitioner has been carrying on business of making available on payment of the stipulated price the services of the members of the group of musicians employed by it on wages is a shop, to which the Act is applicable by virtue of the Notifica- tion dated 20.9.1975 issued under section 1(5) of the Act which is a beneficient legislation. Though the word 'shop' has not been defined in the Act, a shop is no doubt an establishment (other than a factory) to which the Act can be e~tended under section 1(5) of the Act provided other requirements are satisfied. [380D-E] ~- c D 2. The fact that the services are rendered by the emoloyees' en- gaged by the petitioner intermittently or during marriages does not entitle the petitioner to claim any exemption from the operation of the Act, as much as the place of business of the petitioner is a "shop"' and not a "factory" as defined in section 2(12) and section 1(4) refers only to the factories. Further, the services of the employees of the petitioner t-- E are not confined only to marriages which now a days take place throu- ghout the year but also to provide music at several other social functions also l"hich may take place during all seasons. [380G-H; 381A 1 The definition of an "employee" under the Act has a "'tler mean- A.: ing. The employees who w~rked outside the business premises but those F whose duties are connected with the business are also 'employees' + ~ within the meaning of section 2(9)(i) of the Act. Even those employees who are paid daily wages or those who are part-time employees are employees for purposes of the Act. [381B] Nagpur Electric Light & Power Ltd. v. Regional Director G Employees State Insurance Corporation etc., [1967] 3 S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.