Madras High Court
Employees' State Insurance ... vs Prabal Electricals (Madras) Pvt.Ltd on 24 January, 2018
Author: M. Govindaraj
Bench: M.Govindaraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.01.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ C.M.A.No.2708 of 2011 1.Employees' State Insurance Corporation, rep. by its Director, 143, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 2.The Recovery Officer, E.S.I.Corporation, 143, Sterling Road, ... Appellants Chennai 600 034. Vs. Prabal Electricals (Madras) Pvt.Ltd., rep. by its M.D. Mr.P.R.Subramanyam, No.2, II Street, Gopalapuram, Chennai 86. ... Respondent Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, against the order and decree dated 31.07.2008 made in E.I.O.P.No.51 of 2005 on the file of the Employees State Insurance Court (Principal Labour Court), Chennai. For Appellant : M/s.S.Jayakumari For Respondent : Mr.M.Soundararajan J U D G M E N T
Aggrieved over the order dated 31.07.2008 in E.I.O.P.No. 51 of 2005 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court (Principal Labour Court), Chennai, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation has preferred this appeal.
2. According to the appellant, the payment made to the outsiders for the job work done without the supervision of the respondent also attract contribution and therefore, the appellant passed the order under Section 45(A) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, in proceedings No.TN/INS-IV/51-18455-64 dated 13.03.2003. After considering the issue, Employees State Insurance Court following the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of between E.S.I.Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Director, Madras and Bethall Engineering Company, Rep. by (MRS.) S.V.Umayal, Proprietrix reported in 2007 (4) CTC 529 has held that the order passed under Section 45(A) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, is not sustainable and the payment made to the outside job work does not attract the contribution from the establishment.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for both the parties would submit that the above-said order passed by the Hon'ble Full Bench squarely covers the issue.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the matter is taken up on appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is still pending. As long as the issue covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court is in force, the order dated 31.07.2008 made in E.I.O.P.No.51 of 2005 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court cannot be interfered with.
5. The issue involved in this case is that the respondent establishment has outsource work of rewinding, painting and turning of the electrical motors and the payment is made on bills. Since the issue is covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, the appeal merits no consideration.
M. GOVINDARAJ, J.
asi
6. However, the order will be subject to the result of the appeal pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
24.01.2018
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
asi
To
The Employees State Insurance Court
(Principal Labour Court), Chennai.
C.M.A.No.2708 of 2011