ZUARI CEMENT LTD. versus REGIONAL DIRECTOR E.S.L.C. HYDERABAD & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 6 S.C.R. 474 · Decided: 02-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015) 6 S.C.R. 474 
ZUARI CEMENT LTD. 
v. 
REGIONAL DIRECTOR E.S.l.C. HYDERABAD & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos .5138-40 OF 2007) 
JULY02,2015 
[T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Employees State Insurance Act, 1948- ss. 75(1)(g) 
C and 87 - Power to grant exemption from applicability of the 
Act- Whether lies uls. 87 with appropriate government or u/ 
s. 75(1)(g) with ES/ Cowt-Held: In terms of s.87, appropriate 
Government alone has power to grant or refuse exemption 
- ES/ Court uls. 75, has power to decide disputes between 
D employer and the Corporation - Grant or refusal of exemption 
cannot be said to be a dispute between employer and the 
Corporation - In the present case, order of the ES/ Court 
granting exemption was without jurisdiction and hence non-
est -Jurisdiction. 
E 
Jurisdiction - Conferment of- Held: The parties, by 
consent, cannot agree to vest jurisdiction in the court to try 
the dispute, when the court does not have the jurisdiction. 
Practice and Procedure - Objection as to want of 
F jurisdiction - Held: Such objection can be raised at any stage. 
G 
Interpretation of Statutes -
Where the statute 
prescribes the procedure, it should be done in the manner 
prescribed and in no other way. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In terms of Section 87 of the Act, only 
the appropriate Government has the power to grant 
H exemption to a factory or establishment or class of 
474 
ZUARI CEMENT LTD. v. REGIONAL DIRECTOR E.S.l.C. 475 
HYDERABAD & ORS. 
factories or establishments from the operation of the A 
Act. In fact, the appellant-factory itself has obtained 
exemption from the appropriate Government-State 
Government under Section 87 of the Employees State 
Insurance Act, 1948, for the period from 1986 to 1993. 
Likewise, the rejection of exemption was also under B 
Section 87 of the Act. While so, seeking the relief of 
declaration from the ESI Court that the appellant is 
entitled to exemption from the operation of the Act is 
misconceived. Contrary to the scheme of the statute, 
the High Court cannot confer jurisdiction upon the ESI C 
Court to determine the issue of exemption. (Para 12] 
(484-E-G] 
2. The Employees Insurance Court is a tribunal 
specially constituted for the purpose of deciding any D 
controversy that may arise on the matters enumerated 
in Section 75 of the Act. A reading of Section 75 of the 
Act would show that the ESI Court has full jurisdiction 
to decide all the matters arising between the employer 
and the Corporation under the Act. The expression "any E 
other matter" occurring in Section 75(1) (g) only means 
any other dispute between an employer and corporation 
or a person and Corporation pertaining to the 
contribution or benefit or other dues payable under the F 
Act or any other matter required to be decided by ESI 
Court under the provisions of the Act. Grant or refusal 
of exemption by the appropriate government cannot be 
said to be a dispute between the employer and the 
Corporation. For grant or refusal of exemption, a specific G 
provision is prescribed under the Act, it cannot be 
brought within the ambit of "any other matter" required 
to be decided by the Employees' Insurance Court under 
this Act. [Para 13] [484-H; 485·A·B, D·E] 
H 
476 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
3. Where a statute provides that a particular thing 
should be done, it should be done in the manner 
prescribed and not in any other way. As per the 
scheme of the Act, appropriate government alone 
could grant or refuse exemption. When the statute 
B prescribed the procedure for grant or refusal of 
exemption from the operation of the Act, it is to be 
done in that manner and not in any other manner. 
[Para 14] [486-A-B; 485-G-H] 
C 
State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Ambay Cements 
D 
and Another 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 125: (2005) 1 SCC 368; 
Babu Verghese and Others vs. Bar Council of Kera/a and 
Others 1999 (1) SCR 1121: (1999) 3 SCC 422 - relied 
on. 
4. It is correct that the High Court directed the 
appellant to approach the ESI Court constituted under 
Section 74 of the Act for the relief which the appellant 
had claimed in the writ petitions. Both, the appellant 
E as well as the ESI Corporation did not challenge the 
order of the High Court but subjected themselves to 
the jurisdiction of the ESI Court. Neither the order of 
the High Court nor the act of Corporation, subjecting 
itself to the jurisdiction of ESI Court would confer 
F jurisdiction upon ESI 

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