Bombay High Court
Agricultural Produce Market ... vs Employees State Ins.Corpn.Pune on 23 August, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA No.397/1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.397 OF 1998
Agricultural Produce Market
Committees having office at
Dhule Road, Amalner,
Through its Secretary. = APPELLANT
(orig. Applicant)
VERSUS
The Employees State Insurance
Corporation (A statutory Corporation
constituted under Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948, having one of
its Sub Regional Office at P.M.T.
Commercial Complex, Swargate, Pune. = RESPONDENT
-----
Mr.NB Khandare, Advocate for Appellant;
Mr.VD Sonawane, Advocate for Respondent
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
DATE :
23 rd
August,2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1) Heard. The appellant - Agricultural
Produce Market Committee has filed the present
appeal taking exception to the judgment and order
dated 12th June, 1998 passed by the Judge,
Employees' Insurance Court, Pune. The challenge
to the judgment and order is raised inter alia on
several grounds. Applicability of the provisions
of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for
short, the ESI Act) to the appellant - Market
Committee was the principal ground raised in the
appeal and in addition to that, the other grounds
are also raised.
2) In so far as applicability of the
provisions of the ESI Act is concerned, the said
controversy has been settled by the Judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court delivered on 7 th
January, 2015 in WP No.3276/1999.
. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by
the Dhule Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
wherein the point at issue was, `whether the
provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act
can be applied to the Agricultural Produce Market
Committees; and the Division Bench of this Court
has recorded a finding that the provisions of ESI
Act are applicable to the Agricultural Produce
Market Committees.
3) It is informed that the decision
rendered in Writ Petition No.3276/1999 was
challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
However, the Special Leave Petition so filed has
been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
4) Shri Khandare, learned Counsel appearing
for the appellant, therefore, did not press the
said issue in view of the aforesaid judgment of
the Division Bench, which stood confirmed up to
the Hon'ble Apex Court.
5) The second point, which was raised by
Shri Khandare, was in respect of jurisdiction of
Pune Court for deciding the application so filed
by the appellant. Inviting my attention to the
provisions of Section 74 of the ESI Act, the
leaned Counsel submitted that the only Court,
which was having jurisdiction to decide the
controversy was the Court at Jalgaon and not at
Pune.
. The learned Counsel also placed on
record a Notification dated 1st April, 1987,
evidencing that for Jalgaon district, Shri
J.A.Gaikwad, Judge, Labour Court, Jalgaon was
designated as ESI Court. However, the submission
so made by Shri Khandare also cannot be accepted
in view of the specific provisions in The Bombay
Employees' State insurance Courts Rules, 1959.
6) Shri Sonawane, learned Counsel appearing
for the Respondent - Corporation, invited my
attention to Rule 16 of The Bombay Employees'
Insurance Courts Rules, 1959, which reads thus, -
"16. Place of suing
In cases not falling under sub-
section (1) of Section 76, a
proceedings against any person
shall be instituted in the Court
within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction -
(a) the apposite party or each of
the opposite parties where there
are more than one, at the time of
commencement of the proceedings,
actually and voluntarily reside, or
carries on business, or personally
works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties,
where there are more than one, at
the time of the commencement of the
proceedings actually and
voluntarily resides, or carries on
business, or personally works for
gain, provided that in such case
either the leave of the court is
given, or the opposite parties, who
do reside, or carry on business or
personally work for gain, as
aforesaid, acquiesce in such
institution; or
(c) the cause of action wholly
or in part, arose."
7) Reading of the aforesaid Rule makes it
clear that Pune Court was having jurisdiction to
decide the controversy. As pointed out by Shri
Sonawane, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, in the application filed by the
appellant before the Insurance Court at Pune, the
appellant itself has stated in para 1 of the said
application that the entire cause of action for
filing the said application had occurred in Pune
since the hearing for recovery of contribution
under the ESI Act took place at Pune in the
office of opponent. In the aforesaid application
in para 9 thereof, the appellant had reiterated
that the cause of action for hearing the said
application arose within the jurisdiction of Pune
Court. It is further significant to note that
the appellant had also referred to Rule 16 of The
Employees' Insurance Court Rules in the
application by it before the Pune court. In view
of the above, the point so urged by Shri
Khandare, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant Market Committee that the Pune Court
was not having jurisdiction to decide the
application, cannot be sustained. I reiterate
that the Pune Court was having jurisdiction to
decide the application filed by the appellant -
Market Committee. I, therefore, do not see any
reason for causing interference in the impugned
order. The appeal is devoid of any substance.
Hence, the following order, -
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed without any
order as to costs;
ii) Pending Civil Application, if any,
stands disposed of.
sd/-
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
bdv/
