LexHYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LTD. versus ESI CORPORATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\_
{
A
HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LTD.
v.
·{-
ESI CORPORATION
SEPTEMBER 24, 2007
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN,JJ.)
Employees State Insurance Corporation Act, 1948; Ss. 2(9), 2(14)
and82:
c
Persons engaged by a contractor for doing work at Railway-
Employees-Classification of in the context of s.2 (g) of the 1948 A ct-
Whether employees of contractor or Railway-Held: High Court did
not analyze the factual position to see the applicability ofs.2(g) ofthe
D Act-Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate to remit the
matter to High Court to decide by analyzing the factual position for
applicability of the provisions of the Act-Directions issued.
l.
The question involved for determination in the appeals was as
to whether the workmen engaged by the appellant".'organisation were
E encompassed by the definition of an 'employee' under Section 2(9)
of the Employees State Insurance Act.
Appellant contended that without analyzing the factual position
and formulating the right issues, the High Court in an abrupt manner
F
dismissed the appeals; and that there were different categories of
persons involved and one uniform yardstick cannot be applied to
them.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
G
HELD: The High Court while dealing with the appeals under
Section 82(2) of the Employees State Insurance Act is required to
analyse the factual position to see whether the definition of employee
in terms of Section 2(9) of the Act applies to the facts of the case.
Whether the decided case, RajKamal Transport v. E.S.l.C.,
H
272
HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LTD. v. ESI CORPORATION 273
[PASAYAT,J.]
Hyderabad, applies to the facts of the case was to be adjudicated by A
taking note of the factual background. Since the High Court ha~
not analysed the factual position, it would be appropriate to remit
the matter to the High Court for analyzing the factual position tQ
decide whether provisions of the Act are applicable to the category
of persons engaged. [276-E-F-G]
. B
Raj Kamal Transportv. ES.LC., Hyderabad, (1996) 3 SCALE
806, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 702-
709of2001.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.1998 of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh in A.A. Order Nos. 690-696 & 722 of 1994.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 710-717of2001.
K.V. Viswanathan, Vishal Gupta and Shabyashachi Patra (for
Sanjeev Kumar) for the Appellant.
Vijay K. Mehta for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
D
E
DR. ARIJIT P ASA YAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals is to the ,
order passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court,
which by the impugned order dismissed all the appeals filed under Section
82(2) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short the 'Act'). F
The question involved in the appeals was whether the workmen engaged ·
were encompassed by the definition of an 'employee' under Section 2(9)
of the Act. The High Court held that the appellants were the principal '
employers so far as the concerned workers who are employed are .
concerned and, therefore, they are liable to pay contribution under the G
Act. The High Court after quoting Section 2(9) of the Act referred to
the decision of this Court in Rajkamal Transport v. E.S.l C, Hyderabad,
(1996) 3 SCALE 806 and held that the orders passed by the courts
below are correct and the appeals lack merit.
2. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants H
274
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 10 S.C.R.
. A submitted that without analyzing the factual position and formulating the
right issues, the High Court in an abrupt manner dismissed the appeals. It
was submitted that there were different categories of persons involved
and one uniform yardstick cannot be applied so far as they are concerned.
B
3. In response, learned counsel for the.Corporation supported the
. judgment of the High Court.
c
D
E
F
G
H
4. The issues which require to be considered are as follows:
(a) Whether the persons engaged by the contractors for loading
and unloading at the railway sidings are employees of the
contractor?
(b) Whethe_r statutorily such persons would qualify as insured
persons as defined under Section 2( 14) of the Act or was their
engagement of a sporadic nature with liberty in them to work for
several employers?
( c) Whether for the work of loading and unloading at tht;! railway
sidings there was supervision by the appellant or its agent?
( d) Whether persons eExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.