Karnataka High Court
Employees State Insurance Corporation vs M/S. Tarapore And Company on 29 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29803-DB
WA No. 576 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 576 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,
(A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING),
REGIONAL OFFICE (KARNATAKA)
NO.10, BINNYFIELDS, BINNYPET,
BENGALURU-560 023,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR.
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Digitally signed by
MAYAGAIAH (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING),
VINUTHA REGIONAL OFFICE (KARNATAKA),
Location: HIGH NO.10, BINNYFIELDS, BINNYPET,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 023.
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,
(A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING),
REGIONAL OFFICE (KARNATAKA)
NO.83, PRIDE PLAZA,
5TH MAIN, CHAMARAJPET,
BENGALURU-560 023.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. GEETHA DEVI M.P, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29803-DB
WA No. 576 of 2023
AND:
M/S. TARAPORE & COMPANY,
(A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER
INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932),
"BELVEDERE COURT", 6,
SPENCER ROAD, FRAZER TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 005,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RANGA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
THE 13.03.2019 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-
9049/2014 WHICH WAS CONFIRMED IN THE REVIEW PETITION
No-474/2022 IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)
This appeal has been filed by the Employees State
Insurance Corporation-ESIC and its functionaries challenging
the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.03.2019 in
WP.No.9049/2014, whereby the learned Single Judge has held
that as the respondent is involved in Construction Industry, the
impugned notice dated 20.01.2014 and communication dated
NC: 2024:KHC:29803-DB
15.05.2013 cannot be sustained in law. He also held as and
when the provisions are made applicable to Construction
Industry, the respondent shall get itself registered under the
provisions of the Act.
2. Suffice to state that whether construction workers
shall be covered under the provisions of the Employees State
Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ESI Act' for
short) is an issue pending before the Supreme Court in
Builders Association of India Vs. The Employees State
Insurance Corporation reported in SLP No.13351/2018.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants is that the appellants have covered the respondent
on the premise that the respondent has engaged 43 regular
employees in administrative side of the respondent in the
month of April, 2011. According to her, despite several notices,
the respondent did not cover its employees and sought time to
do the needful only prospectively. According to her, 43
employees are not those employees, who are working as
construction workers and hence, the respondent cannot escape
the liability of covering 43 employees under the provisions of
the ESI Act. According to the learned counsel, the learned
NC: 2024:KHC:29803-DB
Single Judge has erred in concluding that the respondent, being
in Construction Industry, it is not covered in view of the
pendency of SLP before the Supreme Court. According to her,
the issue before the Supreme Court is in respect of construction
workers and not Construction Industry.
4. On the other hand, Sri Ranga, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for respondent states that, even otherwise, it is the
case of the respondent that less than 10 employees are
working in the respondent-office and as such, in terms of the
provisions of the ESI Act, which is applicable to an
establishment having more than 10 employees, the said
provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable to the
respondent.
5. As the issue that arises for consideration is whether
the coverage is only because the employees working in the
Office of the respondent are regular employees (not the
construction workers) and also the fact that whether less than
10 employees or more than 10 employees are working in the
respondent Organization, we deem it appropriate to set aside
the order of the learned Single Judge and remand the matter
back to the appellants for reconsideration of the case by the
NC: 2024:KHC:29803-DB
Competent Authority, who shall decide the issue of coverage,
by hearing both the parties on the basis of the material already
on record and take a decision as to whether the employees who
are sought to be covered by the appellants are working on the
Administrative side of the respondent Company or are
construction workers and also whether in fact less than 10
employees are working in the respondent-Organization (as is
the case of respondent).
6. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within
a period of 4 weeks, effective from the date of first appearance
of the respondent before the Authority concerned. The
Authority concerned shall notify the date and time of hearing to
the respondent after receipt of the certified copy of this order.
7. The appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
KTY
