Madras High Court
K.R.Hospital vs The Deputy Director on 9 March, 2021
C.M.A.No.714 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.03.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.714 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.2147 of 2019
K.R.Hospital,
Cuddalre, Rep.by Dr.K.Rajendran,
48, Nethaji Road,
Manjakuppam, Cuddalore – 607 001. ..Appellant
Vs.
The Deputy Director,
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Chennai – 600 034. ..Respondent
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82 (2) of ESI
Act, praying to set aside the order dated 18.07.2014 in TN/Ins.V51-00-
07743-000-1401 passed by the Respondent and confirmed by the ESI
Court-Cum-Principal Labour Court, Cuddalore in ESIOP No.2 of 2015
Order dated 26.04.2017.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Ravichander
For Respondent : Mr.G.Bharadwaj
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.714 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The order dated 26.04.2017 passed in ESIOP No.2 of 2015 is
under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The substantial questions of law raised by the appellant are
relatable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The only contention
of the appellant is that the appellant / K.R.Hospital is having less
number of employees below the clause prescribed under the statute.
Thus, the very coverage made by the respondent Corporation is in
violation of the Act. It is contended that there is no bar for three doctors
to have independent practice at the same premises. In the case of the
appellant the three doctors are independent and therefore, the common
assessment made by the respondent Authorities is incorrect. However,
these factual aspects were raised as question of law which cannot be
construed as substantial question of law as mandated under Section 82
of the ESI Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.714 of 2019
3. However, the learned counsel for the respondent clarified that
the K.R.Hospital is functioning at No.48, Nethaji Road, Manjakuppam,
Cuddalore. All the three doctors, as stated by the appellant are practicing
in the same premises in the same hospital and the name of the hospital is
K.R.Hospital. Therefore, it is to be considered as single establishment
for the purpose of assessing the contribution to be paid under the ESI
Act. The said factual aspects were elaborately considered by the ESI
Court and the findings of the ESI Court reveals that the establishment is
one and the same namely K.R.Hospital and in the said hospital three
doctors are working as consultants in some specialized field.
4. This being the factum, this Court is of an opinion that the
factual aspects adjudicated by the ESI Court has been elaborately
considered based on evidences and documents produced by the
respective parties and no further interference is required by this Court.
In the present case, the substantial questions of law raised are relating to
the facts and circumstances. Based on such facts, the ESI Court
considered the documents and arrived a conclusion that the order passed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.714 of 2019
in Section 45-A of the Act is in consonance with the provisions and in
accordance with law.
5. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant
is that the three doctors are practicing in the same premises and they are
having their own separate employees and thus the employees cannot be
pooled for the purpose of assessing the contribution to be paid under the
ESI Act.
6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the facts admitted
is all the three doctors are practicing under the same hospital and the
name of the hospital is K.R.Hospital. However, each member may be
specialist in a particular field and they may be practicing in their
specialized field. However, when the specialists or experts are practicing
in a same hospital, even in case they are empowered to engage their own
employees for the purpose of assessment, the name of K.R.Hospital is
taken into consideration and therefore, this Court is of an opinion that
many specialists or technicians or other medical staff may perform their
duties and responsibilities or may have certain individual practices.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.714 of 2019
However, for the purpose of assessment, it may not be possible for the
authorities to consider the employees individually and all these
employees though appointed or engaged by the doctors, they are
working in K.R.Hospital and, therefore, K.R.Hospital in the present case
is construed as one unit / establishment under the provisions of the ESI
Act for the purpose of assessing contribution to be paid.
7. Many such hospitals are functioning across the Country. In all
such hospitals or group of medical institutions, specialist doctors are
serving, they are independent and they may have their own assistants.
However, they are practicing under the one umbrella of a hospital which
is named in a particular manner. Once such an emblem is recognized by
the authorities, the said hospital is treated as a single unit for the purpose
of assessing the contribution.
9. This being the spirit of the provisions and the act, the
individual doctors cannot claim, they are independently practicing in a
hospital and therefore, the assessment is to be made on individual basis.
The very claim made in this regard is unsustainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.714 of 2019
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Pns
10. Accordingly, the order dated 26.04.2017 passed in ESIOP
No.2 of 2015 is confirmed and C.M.A.No.714 of 2019 stands dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.03.2021
Pns
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non speaking order
To
1.ESI Court-Cum-Principal Labour Court, Cuddalore.
2.The Deputy Director,
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Chennai – 600 034.
C.M.A.No.714 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
