THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ORS. versus M/S KEY DEE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 842 · Decided: 19-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
CORPORATION & ORS.
v.
M/S KEY DEE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 4159 Of 2022)
MAY 19, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948: s. 1(3) – Issuance of
notification dated 21.07.1999 under – Interpretation of –
Establishment of the respondent situated at Tarapur, if covered within
the area as notified vide notification dated 21.07.1999 – Held:
Respondent’s establishment covered under the purview of the ESI
Act – Notification dated 21.7.1999 issued by the Central Government
specifies the areas to which the ESI Act is made applicable and
significantly, apart from stating that it applies to areas under the
Silchar Municipal Corporation, it specifically names additional
areas/villages, including the village of Tarapur where the factory
of the respondent located – Thus, the notification would extend to
areas well beyond the limits of the Silchar Municipal Corporation
– If the area of coverage of the ESI Act was intended to be restrictive,
there was no need to mention other areas by name in the said
notification – Name of Tarapur village is mentioned twice in the
notification – Word “including” in the Notification, is used as a
word of enlargement, so as to make the territorial application of
the ESI Act extensive – Notification is not confined to “only the
area under the Silchar Municipal Board”, but includes various areas
mentioned therein, in addition to the areas under the Silchar
Municipal Board – High Court erred in holding that since the Village
Tarapur, where the factory of the Respondent is situated, falls outside
the municipal limits of Silchar, the establishment of the respondent
is not covered by the notification, thus, the decision of High Court
set aside.
Interpretation of Statutes: Notification issued u/s. 1(3) of the
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – Principles of interpretation
– Held: Notification being a statutory notification, the principles of
interpretation of subordinate legislation are applicable – If the words
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 842
842
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
843
used are unambiguous, the cardinal principle of interpretation is
that effect has to be given to every word in the subject notification.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The 21.7.1999 notification issued by the central
government specifies the areas to which the Employees’ State
Insurance Act, 1948 is made applicable and significantly, apart
from stating that it applies to areas under the Silchar Municipal
Corporation, it goes on to specifically name additional areas/
villages, including the village of tarapur. It is therefore not difficult
to comprehend that the notification would extend to areas well
beyond the limits of the Silchar Municipal Corporation. If the
area of coverage of the ESI Act was intended to be restrictive,
there was no need to mention other areas by name in the said
notification. The logical interpretation would then be that the
entire village area of Tarapur is notified for coverage as the name
of Tarapur village is mentioned twice in the notification. The
significance of this must be given due weightage. [Para 15][852-
D-F]
1.2 The notification issued under Section 1(3) of the ESI
Act is a statutory notification and the same should be treated as
a part of the statute, both for the purposes of construction and
also for the obligations arising therefrom, as if, they are contained
in the Act. The principles of interpretation of subordinate
legislation are applicable for interpretation of such statutory
notification. If the words used are unambiguous, the cardinal
principle of interpretation is that effect has to be given to every
word in the subject notification. An interpretation that the
statutory notification was intended to cover only those areas falling
within the jurisdiction of the Silchar Municipal Board as was
decided in the impugned judgment, would mean that all the other
areas specifically mentioned in the notification, which are
otherwise beyond the limits of the Silchar Municipal Corporation,
would be excluded from the purview of the statutory notification.
If this is accepted, there would be departure from the cardinal
principle of interpretation of giving full effect to every word of
the notification. [Paras 16, 17][852-F-H]
THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ORS. v.
M/S KEY DEE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
844
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
S

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