Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

E.S.I. Corporation vs The Special Officer on 18 June, 2024

Author: S.Srimathy

Bench: S.Srimathy

                                                                         C.M.A(MD)No.1096 of 2013




                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED: 18.06.2024

                                                      CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

                                          C.M.A(MD)No:1096 of 2013
              E.S.I. Corporation,
              Sub Regional Office (Tirunelveli),
              Tirunelveli – 1,
              Represented by its Regional Joint Director.                   ... Appellant

                                                       Vs.
              The Special Officer,
              01.1011, Ramanuja Co-operative Stores Limited,
              Nanganeri, Tirunelveli.                                      ... Respondent

              PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 82(2) of the
              Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, against the decree and judgment dated
              11.01.2012 made in E.S.I.O.P.No.8 of 2011, on the file of the Employees' State
              Insurance Cum Labour Court, Tirunelveli.


                                     For Appellant     : Mr.C.Karthick
                                     For Respondent    : Mr.M.E.Ilango

                                                      *****




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

              1/6
                                                                                     C.M.A(MD)No.1096 of 2013




                                                       JUDGMENT

The ESI Corporation has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The contention of the appellant is that the respondent has engaged in manufacturing process, therefore, they will come under the provisions of ESI Act for which the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the definition clause, wherein it is stated as under:

Section 2 (14AA) the manufacturing process shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Factories Act, 1948.” Under the Factories Act, it is stated as under:
(k) “manufacturing process" means any process for- (1) making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking up, demolishing, or otherwise treating or adapting any article or substance with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal, or
(ii) pumping oil, water, sewage or any other substance, or
(iii) generating, transforming or transmitting power; or
(iv) composing types for printing, printing by letter press, lithography, photogravure or other similar process or book binding; [or]
(v) constructing, reconstructing, repairing, refitting, finishing or breaking up ships or vessels; [or]
(vi) preserving or storing any article in cold storage;]” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6 C.M.A(MD)No.1096 of 2013 When the manufacturing process is inclusive of packing also, the respondent Society would clearly come under the definition clause and they ought to pay the contribution.

3. The said issue is dealt with by the Labour Court wherein it is held that the respondent is engaged in distributing ration shop materials to the general public especially and they are distributing rice and other materials. In order to distribute the said materials, the respondent is using covers and while giving the same, a heat machine is used for closing the bags. The said process of packing will not come under the definition of manufacturing process. The counter affidavit of the respondent clearly states the process carried out by the respondent. After perusing the said process, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the said process will not come under the definition of manufacturing process. This Court is of the considered opinion when the respondent’s main job is to distribute the ration material to the general public which the Government has directed to do so, the respondent is simply engaging in distribution of the materials. While distributing the rice and other things, they are using packing bags and giving the same. In order to ensure that the bag is not loosely packed, they are using a sealing machine to cover the opening of the bags and that activity will not come https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 C.M.A(MD)No.1096 of 2013 under the definition of manufacturing process. This Court is accepting the contention of the respondent and also accepting the finding of the Labour Court and the appellant has not made out any case.

4. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed by the Labour Court. Based on the order passed by the ESI Corporation, consequential orders were also passed. Since this Court is setting aside the main order itself, the consequential order also will go. No costs.




                                                                         18.06.2024
              NCC                 :   Yes / No
              Index               :   Yes / No
              Internet            :   Yes / No

              Tmg




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

              4/6
                                                                   C.M.A(MD)No.1096 of 2013




              To:

1.The Employees' State Insurance Cum Labour Court, Tirunelveli.

2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6 C.M.A(MD)No.1096 of 2013 S.SRIMATHY, J.

Tmg C.M.A(MD)No.1096 of 2013 18.06.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6