C E S C LIMITED Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRABOSE
LAWS(SC)-1991-11-40
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on
November 15,1991
C.E.S.C.LIMITED
Appellant
VERSUS
SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
M PENTIAH VS. MUDDALA VEERAMALLAPPA [REFERRED TO]BIRDHICHAND SHARMA VS. FIRST CIVIL JUDGE NAGPUR [REFERRED TO]
SENIOR ELECTRIC INSPECTOR VS. LAXMINARAY CHOPRA [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF D G DEWAN MOHIDEEN SAHIB AND SONS IN C A NO 721 OF 63 JANAB S AHMED HUSSAIN AND SONS IN C A NO 791 OF 63 VS. SECRETARY UNITED BEEDI WORKERS UNION SALEM IN BOTH THE APPEALS :SECRETARY UNITED BEEDI WORKERS UNION SALEM IN BOTH THE APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
NAGPUR ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO LIMITED EMPLOYEES OF NAGPUR ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO LIMITED VS. REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION CORPORATION:NAGPUR ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS M SARVETHAM KAMATH D C DIWAN MOHIDEEN AND SONS DHANUSHKODI VILAS CIGAR CO PATEL BROS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA UNION OF INDIA DAVINDRA TRADING CO VS. UNION OF INDIA [DISTINGUISHED]
SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES POSTMASTER GENERAL ANDHRA CIRCLE HYDERABAD 1 UNION OF INDIA UNION OF IND VS. P K RAJAMMA:A SURYA RAO:P NARAYANA RAO:M KISHAIAH:M TUMBESWARARAO:K T KUNJAPPAN:GOKULANANDA DAS [RELIED ON]
ROYAL TALKIES HYDERABAD VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [DISTINGUISHED]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION TRICHUR VS. RAMANUJA MATCH INDUSTRIES [DISTINGUISHED]
P M PATEL AND SONS VS. UNION OF INDIA [DISTINGUISHED]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN MADRAS EMPLOYEES STATF INSURANCE CORPN EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN VS. SOUTH INDIA FLOUR MILLS P LTD [RELIED ON]
ATMA RAM MITTAL VS. ISHWAR SINGH PUNIA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
ALL INDIA NHPC DIPLOMA ENGINEERING COUNCIL VS. NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER CORP LTD [LAWS(J&K)-1999-2-40] [REFERRED TO]ELA DESIGNER PVT. LTD VS. EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2024-1-184] [REFERRED TO]
B RADHAKRISHNA VS. GOURAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-1994-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
S SHANGREIKHAI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2011-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
RUPA & CO. VS. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2016-8-80] [REFERRED TO]
A P POWER DIPLOMA ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION VS. A P S E B VIDYUT SOUDHA HYD [LAWS(APH)-1998-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
ADITYA SHRIKANT KELKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1998-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
PHOOLMATI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2024-2-61] [REFERRED TO]
K C MALHOTRA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1993-5-3] [RELIED ON]
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2018-3-68] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2020-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR,E.S.I. CORPORATION VS. ALAPPAT JEWELLERY, M.G.ROAD [LAWS(KER)-2013-2-47] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR E S I CORPN VS. P MANICKAM PROPRIETOR THIRUMURUGAN ENGINEERING WORKS [LAWS(MAD)-2003-11-19] [DISTINGUISHED]
BASF INDIA LIMITED VS. M GURUSAMY [LAWS(BOM)-2004-1-85] [REFERRED TO]
MANUEL THEODORE DSOUZA VS. N R [LAWS(BOM)-1999-10-26] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2002-6-42] [REFERRED TO]
J A CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-4-25] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION LTD. VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (A.O.D.) [LAWS(GAU)-2018-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
SUO MOTU VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA LAWYERS UNION VS. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-9-205] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE (SUO MOTU) VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2021-4-63] [REFERRED TO]
P ARUMUGHAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-4-186] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INDIA RUBBER WORKS LTD VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(MPH)-2007-3-70] [REFERRED TO]
E S I CORPORATION VS. BETHALL ENGINEERING COMPANY [LAWS(MAD)-2007-7-23] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, THRISSUR VS. THANKAMMA BABY, PROPRIETRIX [LAWS(KER)-2016-6-284] [REFERRED TO]
OP SOCIETY LIMITED VS. MADRAS GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CO EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(MAD)-1996-6-22] [REFERRED TO]
SUHAIL RASHID BHAT VS. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-2019-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
C GANESH VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(MAD)-2011-9-127] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ODHAVJI C THAKOR [LAWS(GJH)-2004-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
Managing Director Hassan Co-operative Milk Producers Society Union Limited VS. The Assistant Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation [LAWS(KAR)-2005-9-96] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MANIPUR VS. NONGTHOMBAM (N) SAMADRAM (O) CHAOBA DEVI [LAWS(MANIP)-2019-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
LIC OF INDIA VS. CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CENTRE [LAWS(SC)-1995-5-51] [RELIED ON]
ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA VIDYASAGAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1997-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
KARUKOLA SIMHACHALAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2022-1-40] [REFERRED TO]
LYKA LABS LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
ESI CO OPERATION HILL FORT ROAD HYDERABAD VS. PRAKASH PAPER MART HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2002-12-86] [REFERRED TO]
BAJAJ TEMPO LIMITED VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2006-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
ABU MARBLE MINING P LTD VS. REGIONAL DIRECTORS EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN [LAWS(BOM)-2004-8-98] [REFERRED TO]
ADITYA SHRIKANT KELKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1998-2-148] [REFERRED]
MAHARASHTRA STATE VETERINARY COUNCIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-12-66] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2008-5-237] [REFERRED TO]
P RATHINAM NAGBHUSAN PATNAIK VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1994-4-49] [RELIED ON]
K.M.A. FINISHED LEATHERS PVT. LTD. VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-1693] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. PREMIER HOME APPLIANCES [LAWS(MAD)-2021-1-123] [REFERRED TO]
NONGTHOMBAM (N) SAMADRAM (O) CHAOBI DEVI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2017-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
MOTOR INDUSTRIES CO LTD VS. REGIONAL DIRECTOR E S I CORPORATION [LAWS(KAR)-2005-7-61] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. ABU MARBLE MINING PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-1992-8-38] [REFERRED TO]
IMPERIAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2019-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
L M L LTD VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION KANPUR [LAWS(ALL)-1999-5-177] [REFERRED TO]
ANOOP KUMAR VS. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS ETAWAH [LAWS(ALL)-1996-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY REGIONAL DIRECTOR VS. VIRGILIO VELHO [LAWS(BOM)-1999-1-52] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATA NAGA DEVI PICTURE PALACE VS. ESI CORPORATION [LAWS(APH)-2007-4-49] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT KUMAR BARAL VS. C.E.S.C. LTD., VICTORIA HOUSE AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1993-2-46] [REFERRED TO]
GANTA JAI KUMAR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITED VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN [LAWS(SC)-1996-1-184] [RELIED ON]
CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CENTRE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1995-1-82] [RELIED ON]
AJI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1995-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. JAI PARKASH TAYAL [LAWS(DLH)-2018-2-109] [REFERRED TO]
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION VS. COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION [LAWS(CAL)-2009-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
B V RAO AND CO CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II AND OFFICER IN CHARGE [LAWS(APH)-2010-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. RAJIV KHOSLA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-490] [REFERRED TO]
SAHYADRI PUNARVASAN GAOTHAN VIKAS SANSTHA VS. PANDHARPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(BOM)-2004-12-33] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATIONRR VS. R K FRANACES [LAWS(BOM)-2006-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
STANDARD CHARTERED GRINDLAYS BANK LIMITED VS. GOVIND PHOPALE [LAWS(BOM)-2002-9-60] [REFERRED TO]
BOC INDIA LTD VS. ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES [LAWS(APH)-2004-9-167] [REFERRED TO]
E I D PARRY LTD VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN [LAWS(APH)-2001-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR BANSAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-7-210] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE HANDICRAFT VS. SECRETARY NGINEERING AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION [LAWS(KAR)-2006-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR E.S.I.CORPORATION VS. THANKAMMA BABY [LAWS(KER)-2016-6-177] [REFERRED TO]
E S I C VS. DITTY KNITTERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM [LAWS(MAD)-1997-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN MEAKIN LTD VS. EMPLOEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(HPH)-2005-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS & TOLL HIGHWAYS [INDIA] LIMITED VS. ADITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) & ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-339] [REFERRED TO]
BIJAYALAXMI TRIPATHY VS. MANAGING COMMITTEE OF W W HOSTEL [LAWS(ORI)-1992-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
SIDRA MEHBOOB SHAIKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-8-86] [REFERRED TO]
MX OF BOMBAY VS. ZY [LAWS(BOM)-1997-4-26] [REFERRED TO]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. RAJIV KHOSLA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN PATRIKA PVT. LTD. VS. REGIONAL DERECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INS.C. [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-9-292] [REFERRED TO]
U.P. AVAS EVAM VS. OM PRAKASH SHARMA [LAWS(SC)-2013-4-65] [REFERRED TO]
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2012-1-105] [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA STATUTORY CORPORATION VS. UNITED LABOUR UNION [LAWS(SC)-1996-12-80] [RELIED ON]
S.VIJAYASHANKAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-78] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANANDA K.R. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2021-9-70] [REFERRED TO]
SEENATH BEEVI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2003-9-49] [REFERRED TO]
SOFT BEVERAGES P LTD VS. E S I CORPN [LAWS(MAD)-2000-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INDIA RUBBER WORKERS LTD VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(MPH)-2007-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2012-12-41] [REFERRED TO]
OFFICER IN-CHARGE, SUB-REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE VS. GODAVARI GARMENTS LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2019-7-86] [REFERRED TO]
SAMATHA HYDERABAD ABRASIVES AND MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1997-7-24] [RELIED ON]
NONGTHOMBAM (N) SAMADRAM (O) CHAOBI DEVI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2018-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
GRT HOTELS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(MAD)-2021-10-84] [REFERRED TO]
BARKAT MASIH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-5-320] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. I.T.C. LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2017-8-60] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH INDIA SURGICAL COMPANY VS. REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE [LAWS(MAD)-1997-2-104] [REFERRED TO]
PADMINI PRODUCTS VS. E S I CORPN [LAWS(KAR)-2000-1-76] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR RUBBER COMPANY LTD VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(JHAR)-2007-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYA SPINNING MILLS LIMITED GANGURU PENAMALURU MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(APH)-2003-10-55] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. VS. LAKAMSANI SAMBA SIVA RAO AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. R K FURNACES [LAWS(BOM)-2006-6-106] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR E S I C VS. GOLDEN GATE RESTAURANT [LAWS(BOM)-2001-12-89] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)I have had the advantage of perusing the draft judgments prepared by my learned brethren Punchhi and Ramaswamy, JJ. While Justice Punchhi by the literal construction of the statute, brother Ramaswamy has tried to find out the spirit of the legislation and with a view to conferring the benefit on the workmen, has adopted a construction different from the reported decision 1 of this Court.
(2.)I agree with Justice Punchhi that the appeals should be dismissed and the judgment of the Division Bench should be sustained. At the same time, 1 would like to add that the legislative intention should have been brought out more clearly-by undertaking appropriate legislation once this Court took a different view in the decision referred to in brother Punchhi's judgment. The legislation is beneficial and if by interpretation 1;ut by the Court the intention is not properly brought out it becomes a matter for the legislature to attend to.
(3.)PUNCHHI, J (Per majority):- The sole question which falls for determination in these appeals is, whether on the facts found, the right of the Principal employer to reject or accept work on completion, on scrutinizing compliance with job requirements, as accomplished by a contractor, the immediate employer, through his employees, is in itself an effective and meaningful "supervision" as envisaged under Section 2 (9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the Act) The said provision, as it stood at the relevant time, is set out below, as is relevant for our purpose:-
"2(9) - 'employee' means any person employed for wages in or in connection with lane work of a factory or establishment to which this Act applies and-
(i) who is directly employed by the principal employer' on any work of, or incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work of, the factory or establishment, whether such work is done by the employee in the factory or establishment or elsewhere; or
(ii) who is employed by or through an immediate employer on the premises of the factory or establishment or under the supervision of the principal employer or his agent on work which is ordinarily part of the work of the factory or establishment or which is preliminary to the work carried on in or incidental to the purpose of the factory or establishment; or
(iii) whose services are temporarily lent or let on hire to the principal employer by the person with whom the person whose services are so lent or let on hire has entered into a contract of service;
(2.)I agree with Justice Punchhi that the appeals should be dismissed and the judgment of the Division Bench should be sustained. At the same time, 1 would like to add that the legislative intention should have been brought out more clearly-by undertaking appropriate legislation once this Court took a different view in the decision referred to in brother Punchhi's judgment. The legislation is beneficial and if by interpretation 1;ut by the Court the intention is not properly brought out it becomes a matter for the legislature to attend to.
(3.)PUNCHHI, J (Per majority):- The sole question which falls for determination in these appeals is, whether on the facts found, the right of the Principal employer to reject or accept work on completion, on scrutinizing compliance with job requirements, as accomplished by a contractor, the immediate employer, through his employees, is in itself an effective and meaningful "supervision" as envisaged under Section 2 (9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the Act) The said provision, as it stood at the relevant time, is set out below, as is relevant for our purpose:-
"2(9) - 'employee' means any person employed for wages in or in connection with lane work of a factory or establishment to which this Act applies and-
(i) who is directly employed by the principal employer' on any work of, or incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work of, the factory or establishment, whether such work is done by the employee in the factory or establishment or elsewhere; or
(ii) who is employed by or through an immediate employer on the premises of the factory or establishment or under the supervision of the principal employer or his agent on work which is ordinarily part of the work of the factory or establishment or which is preliminary to the work carried on in or incidental to the purpose of the factory or establishment; or
(iii) whose services are temporarily lent or let on hire to the principal employer by the person with whom the person whose services are so lent or let on hire has entered into a contract of service;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.