Punjab-Haryana High Court
Employees State Insurance Corporation vs M/S 220 K.V. Grid Sub-Station, Bhakra ... on 29 April, 2024
Author: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Bench: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058445
139
2024:PHHC:058445
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.1465 of 1992
Date of Decision: 29.04.2024
Employees State Insurance Corporation
.....Appellant.
Versus
M/s 220 KV Grid Sub-Station, Bhakra Beas
Management Board, Dhulkote (Ambala)
.....Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
*****
Present:- Mr. Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate
for the respondent.
(joined through Video-Conferencing)
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment as handed down by learned
Judge, ESI Court, Ambala City, (for short 'the ESI Court') on 11.08.1992,
whereby the Application moved by the respondent-applicant (here-in-after
to be referred as 'the respondent') under Section 75 of the Employees'
State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') with the prayer to quash the
order passed by the appellant, requiring it (respondent) to pay/deposit the
amount of contributions under the Act, has been allowed, it (appellant) has
preferred the instant appeal to lay challenge to the same.
2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts, as emanating
from the perusal of the file and culminating in the filing of the present
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058445
FAO No.1465 of 1992 -2- 2024:PHHC:058445
appeal, are that the respondent had moved the above-referred Application,
while averring that it was a Grid Sub-Station and no manufacturing process
was being carried out in it and thus, it was not a 'Factory' and hence, the
provisions of the Act were not applicable to it but the appellant had passed
the afore-said order and had, thereby, directed it to pay/deposit an amount
of Rs.32,155.20 Ps. towards the contributions under the Act for the period
from May to December 1986, along-with interest thereon. The appellant
(arrayed as the respondent in the Application) contested the claim of the
respondent on various grounds. Then, the parties were put to the trial by
framing the issues and after appreciating and evaluating the evidence as led
by them on the record and hearing their respective counsel, the ESI Court
has allowed the above-mentioned application, as already indicated in the
opening para of this judgment.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation as
well as learned counsel for the respondent-Grid Sub-Station in the instant
appeal and have also gone through the file carefully.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation contends that
the respondent is a Grid Sub-Station and the process of transformation and
transmission of the electrical energy is carried out in it and therefore, it is a
'Factory' as envisaged under the Act and it being so, it is liable to deposit/
pay the ESI contributions qua its employees and in these circumstances, it
becomes explicit that the impugned order is not legally sustainable and
deserves to be set-aside. To buttress his contentions, he refers to the verdict
rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagpur Electric Lights and Power
Co. Ltd. Vs. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation,
AIR 1967 (Supreme Court) 1364.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058445
FAO No.1465 of 1992 -3- 2024:PHHC:058445
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent argues that the
respondent is a Sub-Station and no manufacturing process or generation of
electrical energy/power is carried out in the same and hence, it cannot be
construed to be a 'Factory' and is, thus, not covered under the provisions
of the Act. He also relies upon the observations as made by the Apex Court
in Workmen of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. The Management
of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, AIR 1973 (Supreme Court) 365, in
support of his contentions.
6. Explicitly, the respondent is 220 KV Grid Sub-Station. It is a
matter of common knowledge that the Grid Sub-Station is a Sub-Station
which receives the power from a Power Generating Station and transforms/
regulates the voltage with a Step-Down Transformer and then, transmits
the same to the Distribution Sub-Stations. It is pertinent to mention here
that Section 1(4) of the Act reads as under:-
"1(4) - It shall apply, in the first instance, to all
factories (including factories belonging to the
Government) other than seasonal factories:
[Provided that nothing contained in this sub-
section shall apply to a factory or establishment
belonging to or under the control of the
Government whose employees are otherwise in
receipt of benefits substantially similar or
superior to the benefits provided under this Act]."
Further, Section 2(12) of the Act defines "factory" as under:-
"2(12) - "factory" means any premises including the
precincts thereof-
(a) whereon ten or more persons are employed or
were employed for wages on any day of the
preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a
manufacturing process is being carried on with the
aid of power or is ordinarily so carried on,
(b) xxxx
but does not include a mine subject to the operation of
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058445
FAO No.1465 of 1992 -4- 2024:PHHC:058445
the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952) or a railway
running shed."
As per Section 2(14-AA) of the ESI Act:-
"manufacturing process" shall have the meaning
assigned to it in the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of
1948)."
and as defined under Section 2(k) of the Factories
Act, 1948:-
"manufacturing process means any process for -
(i) xxxxx
(ii) x x x x x
(iii) generating, transforming or transmitting power; or
(iv) x x x x x
(v) x x x x x
(vi) x x x x x"
7. From the afore-quoted provisions, it becomes crystal clear that
the premises where the process for generating, transforming or transmitting
the power is carried out, is a "Factory" within the meaning of the Act and
Hon'ble the Supreme Court has categorically observed in Nagpur Electric
Light and Power Co. Ltd. (supra) that "the premises where the process of
transforming and transmission of the electrical energy is carried out,
constitute a 'Factory'." In the light of these observations, it is held that the
respondent-Grid Sub-Station is a 'Factory' and therefore, the provisions of
the Act would be applicable to it (respondent).
8. The observations, as made by the Apex Court in Workmen of
Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (supra), would be of no avail to the
respondent because the facts and circumstances of the above-cited case are
distinguishable from those of the present one. In the afore-referred case, it
was observed that the nature of the work that the concerned workmen had
to do, even as enumerated in their statement of claim before the Tribunal,
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058445
FAO No.1465 of 1992 -5- 2024:PHHC:058445
clearly showed that they had no part in any manufacturing process and their
functions appeared to be to maintain the existing lines of the generation,
transmission and transformation of power in their respective areas and to
attend to installation and other incidental matters when a new connection
had been given to a consumer and they had to attend the daily complaints
from the consumers, keep regular reports and attend to the defects in the
consumers' premises and they had to go out for the field work and also to
sit in the office for the maintenance and preparation of the relevant records
whereas in the instant case, as discussed earlier, the respondent is a Grid
Sub-Station and the process of transformation and transmission of power/
electrical energy, is carried out in the same.
9. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, the appeal in hand is,
hereby, allowed and the impugned judgment, as passed by the ESI Court, is
set-aside and the application, moved by the respondent under Section 75 of
the Act, stands dismissed.
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
April 29, 2024 JUDGE
Yag Dutt
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
5 of 5
