G L HOTELS LIMITED RITZ PRIVATE LIMITED EASTERN INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LIMITED Vs. T C SARIN:V SHIVRAMAN:EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
LAWS(SC)-1993-8-42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on August 25,1993

G L Hotels Limited Ritz Private Limited Eastern International Hotels Limited Appellant
VERSUS
T C Sarin:V Shivraman:Employees State Insurance Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

BRIAN SINDEY MENDIES VS. SECRETARY BISHOP WEST SCOTT SCHOOL RANCHI [LAWS(JHAR)-2003-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
P NANI VS. CERTIFYING OFFICER CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR [LAWS(APH)-2009-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
NANI P LATE RAMACHANDRAN RAO KAVADIGUDA HYDERABAD VS. CERTIFYING OFFICER CUM DY COMR OF LABOUR HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2009-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
ANANDA VS. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1996-1-49] [FOLLOWED ON]
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. VOLGA RESTAURANT [LAWS(MPH)-2005-10-27] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN EMPLOYED IN THE CANTEEN RUN VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1995-1-40] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATH COFFEE HOUSE VS. REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(KER)-2006-12-527] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. ACES RESTAURANT [LAWS(KER)-2007-1-661] [REFERRED TO]
Madras Star Hotel Employees Union VS. Presiding officer [LAWS(MAD)-2003-11-128] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING PARTNER SHANTHI FLOUR MILLS VS. REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESI CORPORATION [LAWS(KER)-2007-7-88] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESI CORPORATION THRISSUR VS. G SIVAPRASAD PROPRIETOR M S BRICKS KOLLAM [LAWS(KER)-2009-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONSL DIRECTOR ESI CORPORATION VS. P ASOKAN [LAWS(KER)-2009-7-58] [REFERRED TO]
NEW KARPAGAM CANTEEN VS. REGIONAL DIRECTORE E S I CORPORATION CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2005-7-171] [REFERRED TO]
WELCOMGROUP SEAROCK VS. SEAROCK HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(BOM)-2005-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN LTD VS. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(GJH)-2004-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING PARTNER HANTI FLOU MILLS VS. REGIONAL DIRECTORS EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORP [LAWS(KER)-2008-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
MADHU FANTASY LAND PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION [LAWS(BOM)-2002-2-124] [REFERRED TO]
ABOOBAKER VS. MOHAMMED SHAFFIN [LAWS(KER)-2009-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEE STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. SEROFIE BERNARD VAZ [LAWS(BOM)-2008-9-70] [REFERRED TO]
CRICKET CLUB OF INDIA VS. EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-1994-1-69] [REFERRED TO]
HOTEL ANNAPURNA VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(KER)-1995-3-51] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI GYMKHANA CLUB LTD. VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN. [LAWS(SC)-2014-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
GOKALDAS TRADING CO. VS. REGIONAL DIRECTOR [LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-144] [REFERRED TO]
TAJ MADRAS FLIGHT KITCHEN PVT. LIMITED VS. ASSISTANT INSPECTOR OF LABOUR [LAWS(MAD)-2015-11-157] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR VS. SEROFIE BERNARD VAZ [LAWS(BOM)-2008-8-608] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The point involved in all these appeals is whether the hotels run by the appellants are factories within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2 (12 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and, therefore, covered by Section 1 (4 of the Act.
(2.)The State Insurance Corporation had raised a demand for contribution from the appellant-hotels for different periods between 1970 till 11/11/1978 treating them as factories within the meaning of the Act. It may be noted here that there is no dispute with regard to the contribution payable on and from 12/11/1978 since a notification has been issued treating the hotels as "establishments" from that date and, therefore, they are since covered by Section 1 (5 of the Act.
(3.)The main contention of the appellants before us was that the entire premises of a hotel cannot be treated as a "factory" within the meaning of the said section merely because the process of cooking food is carried on in its kitchen which forms only a part of the said premises. It was not disputed before us, though it appears it was vehemently argued before the High court, that kitchen is a factory since a manufacturing process within the meaning of Section l (k) of the Factories Act is carried on there. The argument was that the activities which are carried on in the rest of the premises of the hotel must have a connection with the activity carried on in the kitchen, and since there is no such connection, the definition of"factory" should not be extended to the other premises of the hotel. The definition of "factory" given in Section 2 (12 of the Act reads as follows:
"2.Definitions.- In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-

(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, or

(B) whereon twenty 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 without the aid of power or is ordinarily so carried on,

But does not include a mine subject to the operation of the Mines Act, 1952 or a railway running shed;"



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.