Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2016 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 1362 - SUPREME COURTApplicability of ESI Act - whether casual workers are covered under definition of employee as defined in Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act) and pertaining to period for which Turf Club is liable to pay from 1978-79 or from 1987? - HELD THAT:- Reliance upon Regulations 26 to 31 of Regulations of 1950 is also of no avail as the Regulations make it clear that for the wage period, contribution has to be made by the employer as provided in Regulation 31 otherwise he is liable to make payment as provided in Regulation 31A and amount carry interest, which is recoverable as arrears of land revenue. It is also settled that interest cannot be waived. Regulation 36 also makes it clear that when an employee is employed by an employer for a part of the wage period, the contribution in respect of such wage period shall fall due on the last date of the employment in that wage period. The intendment of regulation is clear to cover work rendered in part of wage period. This Court in Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Madras v. South India Flour Mills (P) Ltd. [1986 (4) TMI 368 - SUPREME COURT] has overruled the decision of the Madras High Court in Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. Gnanambikai Mills Ltd. [1973 (2) TMI 142 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] in which the High Court laid down that though casual employee may come within the definition of the term “employee” under section 2(9) of the Act, yet they may not be entitled to sickness benefits in case their employment is less than the benefit period or contribution period and that it does not appear from the Act that casual employee should be brought within its purview. Coming to the submission that the ESI Corporation should be held bound by the consent terms, the submission is factually incorrect, misconceived, legally untenable and otherwise also devoid of the substance - the demand in the instant case is based upon the notification dated 18.9.1978 which left no room to entertain any doubt that the establishments of the aforesaid department in question were also covered under the ESI Act. Thus, no benefit can be derived by the consent terms which related to the earlier period when notification dated 18.9.1978 had not been issued. Notification has statutory force and agreement cannot supersede it. It is also clear that several departments of race club were covered under the notification issued in 1968. Thus, the submission raised on the basis of consent terms is hereby rejected. The Turf Club is liable to make the contribution as per notification dated 18.9.1978 along with interest at such rate as provided in the Act and the Rules till the date of actual payment. Let the amount be contributed within a period of three months from today. Consequently, the appeals preferred by ESI Corporation are allowed.
|