TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to make any contribution towards the Employees State Insurance in respect of the impugned demand. 3. The facts in detail have been given in the impugned judgment and hence we need not repeat the same herein. 4. It appears that the appellant had issued a notice under Section 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter for short 'the Act') for making employer's contribution towards the employees state insurance. The respondent No. 1 Board challenged that notice before the Employees State Insurance Court, Delhi. It appears that neither the workers concerned of the respondent No. 1 Board nor any one of them in representative capacity were made parties in the petition under Section 75 of the Act before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. The case of the appellant was that, in fact, none of the concerned persons was its employee and it was difficult to identify them. 8. In this connection we may refer to Section 75(1)(a) of the Act which states that if any question or dispute arises as to whether any person is an employee of the employer concerned, or whether the employer is liable to pay the employer's contribution towards the said persons' insurance, that is a matter that has to be decided by the Employees Insurance Court. Hence, in our opinion, the concerned person has to be heard before a determination is made against him that he is not an employee of the employer concerned. 9. The rules of natural justice require that if any adverse order is made aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n mentioned in Section 46 of the Act. Hence the principal beneficiary of the Act is the workmen and not the ESI Corporation. The ESI Corporation is only the agency to implement and carry out the object of the Act and it has nothing to lose if the decision of the Employees Insurance Court is given in favour of the employer. It is only the workmen who have to lose if a decision is given in favour of the employer. Hence, the workmen (or at least some of them in a representative capacity, or their trade union) have to be necessarily made a party/parties because the Act is a labour legislation made for the benefit of the workmen. 13. In the present case the workmen concerned were not made parties before the Employees Insurance Court, nor was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
