Bombay High Court
Akola Taluka Sahakari Shetki ... vs The Joint Regional Director, ... on 2 March, 2017
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
1 FA-514-08.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 514/2008
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.84/2005
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.89/2005
FIRST APPEAL NO. 514/2008
APPELLANTS : 1. Akola Taluka Sahakari Shetki Kharedi Vikri
Samiti Ltd., Akola, through its Manager
Suresh Tulshiram Harne.
2. Dhananjay Madhukarrao s/o Ramrao Bhuibar,
President, Akola Taluka Sahakari Shetki
Kharedi Vikri Samiti Ltd., Akola.
3. Anandrao Govindrao Patil, Vice-President,
Akola Taluka Sahakari Shetki Kharedi Vikri
Samiti Ltd., Akola.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. The Joint Regional Director,
E.S.I. Corporation, Sub-Regional Office,
Nagpur - 18.
2. The Asstt. Regional Director,
E.S.I. Corporation, Sub-Regional Office,
Nagpur - 18.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Anjali Joshi, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. B. P. Maldhure, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 18:34:40 :::
2 FA-514-08.odt
FIRST APPEAL NO. 84/2005
APPELLANTS : 1. The Joint Director,
ESI Corporation, Sub-Regional Office,
Nagpur - 18.
2. The Assistant Regional Director,
E.S.I. Corporation, Sub-Regional Office,
Nagpur - 18.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. Akola Taluka Sahakari Shetki Kharedi Vikri
Samiti Limited, Akola, through its Manager
Shri Sahadeo Goyindrao Choukhande.
2. Dhananjay Madhukar Bhuibhar,
President, Akola Taluka Sahakari Shetki
Kharedi Vikri Samiti Limited, Akola
C/o Akola Taluka Sahakari Shetki Kharedi
Vikri Samiti Limited, Akola.
3. Anandrao Govindrao Patil,
Vice-President, Akola Taluka Sahakari Shetki
Kharedi Vikri Samiti Limited, Akola,
C/o Akola Taluka Sahakari Shetki Kharedi
Vikri Samiti Limited, Akola.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. B. P. Maldhure, Advocate for the appellants.
Mrs. Anjali Joshi, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 89/2005
APPELLANTS : 1. The Deputy Director,
ESI Corporation, Sub-Regional Office,
Nagpur - 18.
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 18:34:40 :::
3 FA-514-08.odt
2. The Recovery Officer,
Shri D. Venugopal,
E.S.I. Corporation, Sub-Regional Office,
Nagpur - 18.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. Akola Taluka Sahakari Shetki Kharedi Vikri
Samiti Limited, Akola, through its Manager
Shri Sahadeo Govindrao Choukhande.
2. Anandrao Govindrao Patil,
Vice-President, Akola Taluka Sahakari Shetki
Kharedi Vikri Samiti Limited, Akola,
C/o Akola Taluka Sahakari Shetki Kharedi
Vikri Samiti Limited, Akola.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. B. P. Maldhure, Advocate for the appellants.
Mrs. Anjali Joshi, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : 02/03/2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Since these appeals filed under Section 82 (2) of the Employees State
Insurance Act, 1948 (for short "the said Act) raise challenge to the Judgment
of the Industrial Court, Akola in ESI Application No.1/1987 and ESI
Application No.2/99, they are being decided by this common judgment.
4 FA-514-08.odt
2. The appellant in First Appeal No.514/2008 is a Society registered
under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It
has six Cotton Procuring Centers at Akola Zone, out of which, five are within
Municipal Limits of Akola City and one is situated at Borgaon Manju. The
activities of the said society are with regard to supply of seeds, fertilizers and
insecticides. On 17/06/1986, the Inspector of the Employees State Insurance
Corporation visited the office of the society and on that basis, show cause
notice dated 19/12/1986 came to be issued to the said society calling upon it
to pay contribution for the period from 01/07/1985 till 30/09/1986. The
society submitted its reply on 16/02/1987 and stated that it was not covered
by the Notification dated 03/10/1981 and hence, it was not liable to pay any
contribution. On 29/06/1987, an order under Section 45-A of the said Act
came to be passed holding that the society was covered under the provisions
of the said Act and was liable to pay contribution. Accordingly, demand of
Rs.27,641/- came to be made. Thereafter, Recovery Certificate was also
issued under the provisions of the said Act. Being aggrieved, the society filed
two applications under the provisions of Section 75 of the said Act and by
judgment dated 22/11/2004, it was held that the establishment of the
society was covered under the said Act. The order directing payment of
interest was set aside and the society was directed to pay only the actual
amount of contribution. The society being aggrieved by the aforesaid order,
5 FA-514-08.odt
has filed First Appeal No.514/2008. The Corporation being aggrieved by the
order refusing to grant interest on the amount of contribution has filed First
Appeal Nos. 84/2005 and 89/2005.
3. Smt. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant in First Appeal
No.514/2008 submitted that the activities done by the society did not qualify
for being covered under the provisions of the said Act. It was submitted that
only the activity of purchasing agricultural produce was done from non-
members while all other activities were carried out only with regard to
members of the society. The Fertilizer Depot did not permit purchase by non-
members. She submitted that insofar as the Petrol Pump operated by the
society was concerned, the same was independently registered as a
commercial establishment. Every activity of the society was independent and
not inter-dependent. The word "shop" was not defined under the said Act
and same could not be given a wide meaning as was done by the Industrial
Court. It was then submitted that presently, there were only seven the
employees of the society and at no point of time did the number of
employees exceed 20. It was, therefore, submitted that the question of
applicability of the Act was required to be decided in favour of the society.
There was therefore no question of paying any contribution.
6 FA-514-08.odt
4. Smt. Maldhure, learned counsel for the Corporation, on the other
hand, submitted that activities conducted by the society were systematic in
nature and were also inter-dependent with each other. Referring to the bye-
laws of the society, it was submitted that services were provided by the
society even to members of the public. She submitted that as per the
Notification dated 03/10/1981, the activities of the society were covered and
during inspection, it was found that about 29 workers were engaged by the
society. It was then submitted that exemption granted to the society on
08/06/2004 from making contribution itself indicated that earlier the
establishment was covered due to which exemption was required to be
granted. Even if certain activities were conducted beyond the areas specified
in the Notification, they would be treated as activities of the establishment. In
support of her submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the
following decisions :
i) Transport Corporation of India Vrs. Employees' State Insurance Corpn.
and another AIR 2000 SC 238.
ii) M/s Cochin Shipping Co. Vrs. E.S.I. Corporation (1992) 4 SCC 245.
7 FA-514-08.odt
iii) Dhule Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vrs. Employees State
Insurance Corporation and others 2003 (3) Mh. L. J. 916.
iv) Local Officer, Akola Area Office, Employees State Insurance
Corporation and another Vrs. Ramdas s/o Ramrao Parika in F. A. No.
209/2004 decided on 03/12/2015.
It was, therefore, submitted that the order insofar as the demand for
interest has been set aside is liable to be quashed.
5. The following substantial questions of law have been framed in the
appeals. In First Appeal No.514/2008, the following substantial question of
law was framed on 24/06/2008 :
Does the establishment of appellant attract the third part of the
notification dated 03/10/1981 referred in this case and qualifies for coverage
as a "shop" as contemplated by said notification and whether the trial Court
committed an error in not considering the appellant on this material issue
which goes to the root of the controversy involved in this case ?
6. In First Appeal No.84/2005, the following substantial question of law
was framed :
8 FA-514-08.odt
Whether the Industrial Court was right in refusing the claim for
interest in view of provisions of Section 39(5)(a) of E.S.I. Act is a substantial
question of law ?
7. In First Appeal No.89/2005, the following substantial question of law
was framed :
Whether the Court is erred in not awarding of the interest despite of
mandatory provisions of Section 39 of the Employees State Insurance Act,
1948 ?
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and I have
perused the records of the case.
9. As per the bye-laws of the society, various activities carried out by the
society have been stipulated. The major activities carried out are with regard
to the marketing of cotton, supply of seeds and fertilizers, advancing loans to
the farmers, running Petrol Pump and various other activities. As per the
document at Exh.C-19, it was found that during the course of inspection
about 29 employees were discharging duties on behalf of the society. Though
it was urged on behalf of the society that the engagement of some of the
employees was of temporary nature, the fact remains that during the course
of inspection, their presence was noted.
9 FA-514-08.odt
10. In M/s. Cochin Shipping Company (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that where an establishment carries out systematic
commercial activities or economic activities, the establishment could be
treated as being covered by the expression "shop". This decision has been
subsequently followed in various other decisions and in Transport
Corporation of India (supra), it has been further held that even if one of the
offices or branches is situated outside the area as notified by the Notification,
it would also be covered under the Act if it has functionary integrality with
the Head Office. In the present case, the Industrial Court after considering
the entire material on record came to the conclusion that the Corporation
had rightly covered the society by treating it as an establishment. The finding
as recorded is based on the evidence available on record and after correctly
applying the applicable legal principles. The Industrial Court has noted that
the Muster Roll and Payment Registers for relevant period were not produced
to indicate that the number of employees were less than those stipulated.
Thus, considering the aforesaid evidence, I do not find that it can be held
that the society is not covered as an establishment under Notification dated
03/10/1981. The substantial question of law as framed in First Appeal
No.514/2008 is, therefore, answered against the society.
10 FA-514-08.odt
11. Once it is found that the activities of the society are covered under the
provisions of the said Act, then it is clear that contribution can be demanded
from it and if the same is not paid on the due date, interest is also liable to be
paid as per the provisions of Section 39(5) of the said Act. Considering the
provisions of Section 39(5) of the said Act read with Regulation No.31 (A) of
the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950, it is clear that
the society would also be liable to pay interest on the amount of contribution.
The decision in Local Officer, Akola Area Office (supra) supports the case of
the Corporation. The Industrial Court committed an error when it held that
interest was not liable to be paid by the society. The substantial questions of
law as framed in First Appeal Nos.84/2005 and 89/2005 are answered in
favour of the Corporation.
12. In view of aforesaid discussions, the following order is passed.
ORDER
i) The common judgment dated 22/11/2004 passed in ESI
Application Nos.1/1987 and 2/1999 is partly modified. It is
held that the establishment of the society is covered by
provisions of the said Act and the society is liable to pay
11 FA-514-08.odt
contribution alongwith interest as demanded under Section
45-A of the said Act dated 29/06/1987.
ii) The interest on the amount of contribution shall be
calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 39(5)
of the said Act read with Regulation No. 31(A) of the
Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950.
iii) Accordingly, First Appeal Nos. 84/2005 and 89/2005
are allowed while First Appeal No.514/2008 stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Choulwar
