Employees Staste Insurance ... vs M/S Gunjan Through Its Managaer
2019 Latest Caselaw 2744 ALL

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 2744 ALL
Judgement Date : 10 April, 2019

Allahabad High Court

Employees Staste Insurance ... vs M/S Gunjan Through Its Managaer on 10 April, 2019

Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1352 of 1990
 

 
Appellant :- Employees State Insurance Corporation
 
Respondent :- M/S Gunjan Through Its Manager
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Tiwari, Neeraj Srivastava, Pankaj Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Rakesh Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

1. By way of this appeal the Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'ESIC') has felt aggrieved by the order dated 16.4.1990 passed by Judge, Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur

2. It is stated at the Bar that this matter is covered by the judgment of Apex Court reported in Royall Talkies, Hyderabad & others Versus Employees State Insurance Corporation, AIR 1978 SC 1478. The appeal was ordered to be heard ex-parte as despite service none has appeared.

3. Employees Insurance Court allowed the application holding that only 16 employees were working in the Cinema. It is submitted by counsel that inspection report dated 26.12.1986 showed that cycle-stand and canteen were also run by the Establishment despite that the E.I. Court rejected the same. It is submitted that canteen and cycle stand are incidental or adjunct to the primary object of running a theatre .

4. Sri Rajesh Tiwari-Advocate have heavily relied on the decision of Apex Court which has been ignored by the Court below.

5. According to him there are more than 16 persons in the establishment. The fact that the cycle stand had one agent and two employees. the canteen also had its own employee. Hence, in view of the judgment in Royall Talkies, Hyderabad & others ( supra), the judgment of the E.I. Court cannot be sustained. Canteen and cycle stand will farm part of the Establishment.

6. In that view of the matter this appeal is allowed. The order is quashed and set aside.

7. This Court is thankful to Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant for getting such a very old matter disposed of. However, it appears that more than 29 years have elapsed from the date, this appeal was preferred.

Order Date :- 10.4.2019

Mukesh