LexM/S. SUMANGALI versus REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) 10 S.C.R. 1129 M/S. SUMANGALI A v. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION (Civil Appeal No. 1914 of 2002) JULY 17, 2008 , B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948- Employees' State Insurance Scheme (ES/ Scheme) - Employees' State Insur- ance Corporation clubbing applicant with other establishments c for ES/ coverage - Challenge to - Upheld by ES! Court and High Court as there was unity in management, geographical proximity, financial unity, general unity of purpose and tune- tional integrafity between the different units, thus was single establishment for ES/ coverage - On appeal, held: Role of D j. the Corporation is to read between the lines fo find out the true intent - Concurrent conclusions are factual and legitimate in- ferences - Thus, order of High Court upheld. The question which arose for consideration in these appeals was whether Employees' State Insurance Cor- E poration was justified in clubbing the applicant-propri- etary concern and partnership firm with other establish- ments for the purpose of coverage under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme (ESI Scheme) framed under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. .F With regard to applicant in IC 21 of 1991, the Corpo- ration clubbed the two proprietary concerns of two broth- ers. On inspection it was found that both the units were functioning in the same building and there were 20 (12+8) employees. These units had a common entrance, com- G mon staircase, no separate office, one rented building of ,--'\; which the rent was paid by their father, common electric "' connection and there was single general Ledger for fi- nancial dealings of both the units. 1129 H 1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. ·1 A With regard to applicant in IC 44 of 1991, the Corpo- ration clubbed applicant-partnership firm and two other establishments. On inspection, it was found that the part- ners and proprietors were related to each other. Unit JA was functioning on the 5th floor of the same building where B as other two units were functioning in the same premises i- in the ground floor and had 34 (12+13+9) employees. The employees of one unit were working in other unit and there was only one office for all the three units. With regard to applicant in IC 69 of 1991, the Corpo- c ration clubbed applicant-partnership firm and four other establishments. On inspection it was found that the part- ners and proprietors were related to each other. All these establishments had 31 employees. All these establishments were having separate reg- D istration under the Sales Tax Act, Shops and Establish- -A ments Act and the Income-Tax Act. The notice was issued clubbing the establishments. T~e applicant in IC· 21 of 1991, IC 44 of 1991 and IC 69 of E 1991 filed applications and the same were dismissed. Applicants then filed MFA 964/95, 886/95 and 884/95 re- spectively. High Court dismissed the appeals. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeals, the Court F HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, factual findings as re- corded by the ESI Court and the High Court go to show that there was unity in management, supervision and control, geographical proximity, financial unity, general unity of pur- pose and functional integrality between the different units G and for the sake of ESI coverage, the different units could be treated as 'one establishment'. [Para 18] [1140 A-8] 1.2 In the given case role of the Corporation is to read "'-- between the lines to find out the true intent. The concur- ,.. rent conclusions are essentially factual and are legitimate H inferences. [Para 19] [1140 8-C] .--'; •' .. MIS. SUMANGALl v. REGIONAL DIRECTOR 1131 E.S.I. CORP. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] Associated Cement Cos. v. Their Workmen AIR 1960 A SC 56; Rajasthan Prem Krishan Goods Transport Co. v. Re- gional Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. 1996 (9) sec 454 - referred to. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1914 of 2002 B From the final Judgment and Order datd 24/8/2001 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in MFA No. 884 of 1995 WITH c C.A. Nos. 1915 of 2002 and 4492 of 2008 Romy Chacko for the Appellant. C.S. Rajan, Anupam Mishra and V.J. Francis for the Re- spondent. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No.17173 of 2008. 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Divi- E sio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.