Bombay High Court
The Regional Office ... vs M/S Edifice Consultants Pvt Ltd on 10 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:47866
HMK 1 39. FA-1670-2013.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1670 OF 2013
The Regional Office Maharashtra,
Digitally
SAYYED signed
SAYYED
by
Employees State Insurance Corporation ....Appellant
SAEED SAEED ALI
ALI AHMED ALI
AHMED Date:
ALI
2025.11.11
15:31:01
Versus
+0530
M/s. Edifice Consultants Private Limited ....Respondent
__________________________________________________________________
Mr. Shailesh S. Pathak for Appellant-ESIC.
__________________________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 10th NOVEMBER 2025
P. C. :
1. This appeal is filed under Section 82 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ESI Act) challenging the
order and judgment passed on 17 January 2012 whereby Form C-11 dated
13 May 2009 issued by the appellant-Corporation is declared to be illegal
and bad in law. The reasons in the impugned order state that since the
appellant's Head Office does not have 10 or more coverable employees, the
respondent is not covered by ESI Act by aggregating the coverable
employees at the Head Office and its branches.
2. The respondent is an Architecture and Interior Designing
Consultancy Firm having its Head Office at Mumbai and branches at
various other cities. The tabular statement of total employees and coverable
HMK 2 39. FA-1670-2013.doc
employees at the Head Office and various branches is reproduced herein
below:
Sr. Place Total Employees Coverable Employees
(Drawing wages/salaries
within stipulated time)
3. In addition to the above, it is the case of the appellant-Corporation
that there are 3 contract employees whose payments were made by the
respondent from head office.
4. The Employees' Insurance Court in the impugned judgment has relied
upon the decision of this Court in the case of H. Fillunger & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Pune vs. The ESI Corporation, Pune, First Appeal No.696 of 2001 and has
observed that since the coverable employees at the Head Office is less than
HMK 3 39. FA-1670-2013.doc
10, the impugned proceedings by aggregating the coverable employees at
the Head Office and other branches is bad in law.
5. On 30 July 2014, the present appeal was admitted on following
substantial questions of law:
a. Whether the learned Judge of Employees' Insurance Court,
Mumbai has properly interpreted provisions of Section 1(5) of the
ESI Act ?
b. Whether the learned Judge ought to have treated the employees
working with the respondent company as 'employees' as defined
under Section 2(9) of the ESI Act and covered the establishment
under the provisions of the ESI Act ?
c. Whether the learned trial Judge committed error in interpreting
Sections 2(9) and 2(22) of the ESI Act ?
6. The issue which arises in the present appeal is whether if the
coverable employees in the Head Office are less than 20, but if the
coverable employees at the branches when aggregated with the Head
Office's coverable employees and contract employees exceeds 20 or more
persons, then whether ESI Act is applicable or not.
7. The short issue which arose for my consideration is whether for the
purposes of applicability of the ESI Act, the total number of employees of
the Head Office as well as of the branches within Maharashtra and outside
HMK 4 39. FA-1670-2013.doc
Maharashtra should be included or not. The Insurance Court has merely
followed the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of H. Fillunger &
Co. Pvt. Ltd. Pune B (supra).
8. I have perused the said decision. Firstly, there was no appearance on
behalf of the Insurance Corporation in the said appeal. Secondly, various
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were not brought to the attention
of the Court. Some of these decisions have a direct impact on the issue
raised and were available at the time when the decision in the case of H.
Fillunger & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Pune (supra) was passed.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant Corporation has relied upon
the following decisions :-
i. Kirloskar Consultants Ltd. vs. E.S.I. Corporation, 2001 (1) L.
L. N. 55 (S.C.);
ii. Gauro Mohan Pohoomul vs. E.S.I. Corporation & Anr., 2004
(5) Bom. C. R. 537 (Bom. H.C.);
iii. Transport Corporation of India vs. E.S.I. Corporation & Anr.,
2000 (I) L. L. J. 17 (S.C.);
iv. Southern Agencies vs. Andhra Pradesh E.S.I. Corpoation,
2001 (2) L. L. N. 633 (S.C.);
v. E.S.I. Corporation vs. Radhika Theatre, (2023) 18 Supreme
Court Cases 591;
10. In my view, the issue raised has a wider implication and ramification
and, furthermore, the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of H.
HMK 5 39. FA-1670-2013.doc
Fillunger & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Pune B (supra) did not consider various decisions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also important to note that the decisions
above referred were cited before the Insurance Court and the same have
also been referred to, but there is no finding on the applicability or non-
applicability of the said decisions.
11. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned judgment passed
on 17 January 2012 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the
Employees' Insurance Court to decide afresh by giving opportunity of
hearing to both the parties and after considering various decisions relied
upon by the appellant.
12. Appeal is allowed in above terms.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
