Karnataka High Court
Employees State Insurance Corporation vs The Management Of M/S A Albuquerque & ... on 13 October, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
'~ .yraL.£;'§§io;;2.é§ <:j,f;_' Act? ' the prcziiisfxms 0fsub«$e<:i1Zm3, (2) of Section 45-143 of E, S1 '4 the amounf paid {:3 mass empioyees who had tn} JUI}G%«NT In this appeai by the c9rpo;f;gtie11, ~ ::»;L1b*st:a1"1tial quesfiens of law 4' AV "((1) Whether ccnfributioh ndi"Ei!fiib3e "Praduction Banus" paid the respo1tdentestabZishm§§?{i?_' A H R2) V' 2 'Auditor :2. a regulczr bassié the purview of definifigsrt £13" 1 A01'?
paid to. Hamalies for 'iaadirgg a}:e;'é". z,zr;Zé::(.1c%Zi3fi:g5v"..--kcharges do not cxiimct the V the Insurance Court was correct in 2§§j.:.£ie7z csfpmof cm the respzmden: contrary to
(e) Whether the contrfiauficn is iiable in: be paid on ;\, '(Q,,\_4,£/L t-4Q4«x g V i)ireg:_§:i):' rrgaf .(:f£}fp0i*ation, Bangalore made an order V1_',A12T1d_Vé:9 45~A directing resgaondent ta pay dot1i§I_fib{1'fibfi_ féspeczt sf; an wzdertaken ihe repair work of the responwgiergt establishznem'? H J V'
(f) Whether contributiorz is not liable various items such as leave I:
ex~gm£:'a payment, leave wag=3.g1dv¥ir1c% e'*that ' the employees under the Welfare Accow2t'?" 'V
2. The 1'ii3_<§ quststions may be Stats » ._ .
Tfvfae b in Inazmfacmring of tiles and';: :s% 1ié;bIe".fofi§' §:ont1*ibu':io11. The Deputy V"--ii) . Ciiiisultaticn charges paid. to the Auditor. A. 4_(ii) " Amoullt spent for L111I0ading Firewood ami day.
(iii) Production Banus.
(iv); Repaj1's and Illajfltfiilaliilfi <::11arg:=:s. (V) Wages 3.11:3 salary accoulfi. M. , wx »~-r€e» jt;§dg::':ent of this Court reported in 1.979 {2} ;E1W£}€3Y.Ei:£?S '§SATATE Iwsmmmtz conpomfioy :2.
"SAW MILLS 8» 0128. has centended that éésual eznpioyees are empioyees within the of Saction 2(9) 9f the Act 3110! Wages paid to tfizanl aI;t1'acf:s cantribution. i\? "'1-:x-f«'»~ "~~A§*~ '
3. 1 Exam: hriard S1311. G'i3€'{h3C1€Vi, _ fer appellant and S1*i.§{.M.E\Eata1'aj, L.«.fA(V;r» "
I'€'LSp0I1d€I"1E. ' u " V Ragarciixigz consuitatiori 3
3. It is seen fmzn t1"'2'§;§?' the :'esp¢:}11€1€:11t. had paid ' :3? /~ towa1'c1s {ZOI"1S¥_1l3Z£:¥IiOI1 cllazfges tQA.:*sI.i;c::».i'x1§<fV. Auditor (iuriiag £116: 27:9?' and s::e1'ta.in amesmts The ESI C()t1I't has heitig t11;_V.':3',itA bz1\,_;A):A:,,¢\%::.iatio11s11ip of en1p1Qy,@15~ and e::1:pk3y"e:e' anal 1*espe11de3:1t.
$315: _1esa3;1;é:d: C{)urV::sei for appeilant relying on the Xa,§';I;,J. "the case of REGIONAL DmECTQR, GERBER The appeal is a::;ce}:r{:e<:1 in part. The fu1d'i@:j§gSjV'e3fV H ESE C',-om': }:egardi,11g COI1tI'ib1IEi€)1;1M E1: &_r{:sp::(§'t " 0_f_ 't§ie c011sL:1tati<3I1 chargss paid to Audif0r,»1'f1_1z"e§£*o.(§q;f£ 'V unloading Charges are c01*:1'§:fi11ed. V. '--~'1.'Vhx=: ' is remaxmed to £116: ESE Cf:;):1xrt toV':*fe+'cx€C§;1V;§iid:{:1* tluéviiability of respmltiezit. to make c0;<Tf:§'£j1'*i'f>2i'¥;Li:c;;f;_._:':i;;:i';~.,§ft;.spect sf Ii) production b0:::t.::§'.«4._{ii}v- 'i11;::f{3_t-'3na11ce Charges,
(iii) wagas *f§a:C€:3I,111t. B£3t'a the parties are at liberty to 3.¥;i_du¢e'fui*t§f1er'e:;éi;£¢:ig:e if they so ciesircz.
Ofiice is 'Ci§£'€{f,'CT.<f3(i'__ ti}, " ssiijd back: the lcxwer court; ;:€Cords;':L_é1o:1gvgéith é"ce;3f;*of thifi Grder. /3 A Sd/-'1.
'Judge