LexTHE ESI CORPORATION versus M/S. RADHIKA THEATRE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1045 1045 THE ESI CORPORATION v. M/S. RADHIKA THEATRE (Civil Appeal No. 312 of 2023) JANUARY 20, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.] Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 – s.1(6) (inserted w.e.f. 20.10.89) – Whether w.r.t the demand notices post 20.10.89, a factory or an establishment established prior to 20.10.89 shall be governed by the ESI Act notwithstanding the number of persons employed therein – Held: Prior to insertion of sub-section (6) of s.1, only those establishments/factories engaging more than 20 employees were governed by the ESI Act – However, after sub-section (6) of s.1 was inserted on 20.10.89, under the amended provision a factory or establishment to which ESI Act applies would be governed by the ESI Act notwithstanding that the number of persons employed therein at any time falls below the limit specified by or under the ESI Act – Therefore, for the demand notices for the period after 20.10.89, there shall be liability of every factory or establishment irrespective of the number of persons employed therein – With respect to such a notice it cannot be said that amended s.1 inserting Sub- section (6) is applied retrospectively as held by High Court – Only in case of demand notice for the period prior to inserting Sub- section (6) of s.1, it can be said that the same provision has been applied retrospectively – Sub-section (6) of s.1 therefore, shall be applicable even with respect to those establishments, established prior to 31.03.1989/20.10.1989 – High Court erred in setting aside the demand notices even for the period subsequent to 20.10.89 – Order of High Court set aside – Demand notices for the period post 20.10.1989 restored. Interpretation of Statutes – Social welfare legislation – Interpretation of – Held: ESI Act being a social welfare legislation, any interpretation which would lean in favour of the beneficiary should be given – Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: Prior to insertion of Sub-section (6) of Section 1 of the ESI Act, only those establishments/factories engaging more [2023] 1 S.C.R. 1045 A B C D E F G H 1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R. than 20 employees were governed by the ESI Act. However, thereafter, Sub-section (6) of Section 1 of the ESI Act has been inserted on 20.10.1989, and after 20.10.1989 there is a radical change and under the amended provision a factory or establishment to which ESI Act applies would be governed by the ESI Act notwithstanding that the number of persons employed therein at any time falls below the limit specified by or under the ESI Act. Therefore, on and after 20.10.1989, irrespective of number of persons employed a factory or an establishment shall be governed by the ESI Act. Therefore, for the demand notices for the period after 20.10.1989, there shall be liability of every factory or establishment irrespective of the number of persons employed therein. With respect to such a notice it cannot be said that amended Section 1 inserting Subsection (6) is applied retrospectively as observed and held by the High Court. Only in case of demand notice for the period prior to inserting Sub- section (6) of Section 1 of the Act, it can be said that the same provision has been applied retrospectively. Therefore, the High Court has committed a very serious error in observing and holding that even for the demand notices for the period subsequent 20.10.1989 i.e., subsequent to inserting Sub-section (6) of Section 1 the said provision is applied retrospectively and the High Court has erred in allowing the appeal and setting aside the demand notices even for the period subsequent to 20.10.1989. Sub-section (6) of Section 1 therefore, shall be applicable even with respect to those establishments, established prior to 31.03.1989/20.10.1989 and the ESI Act shall be applicable irrespective of the number of persons employed or notwithstanding that the number of persons employed at any time falls below the limit specified by or under the ESI Act. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside and the demand notices for the period post 20.10.1989 are restored. [Paras 7, 8][1053-E-H; 1054-A-D] Bangalore Turf Club Limited Vs. Regional Director, ESIC (2014) 9 SCC 657 : [2014] 8 SCR 1021– relied on. Case Law Reference [2014] 8 SCR 1021 relied on Para 6.1 A B C D E F G H 1047 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.312 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2021 o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.