Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 23 December, 1986

M.Kannan vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 4 April, 2024

4. The respondents 1 &2 have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner who has an effective alternative remedy in the form of E.I. Court has rushed to this Court with this Writ Petition invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India and that since the petitioner has not approached E.I. Court under Section 75 of the ESI Act, the Writ Petition has to be dismissed. It is mentioned further in counter affidavit that in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2010 II CLR 236:2010 LLR 722 (Raj.DB) and also as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ESIC Vs. C.C.Santhakumar, in Civil Appeal No.4291 of 2000 dated 21.11.2006 reported in 2007(1) SCC 584, the employer shall 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.722 of 2024 move ESI Court and that writ petition is not maintainable. M/s.Sri Venkateswara Traders was covered under ESI Act, 1948, since 01.05.2013 and based on the survey conducted by Social Security Officer of the respondents 1 & 2 on 15.05.2013, it was found that the petitioner was an employer and has engaged 11 employees, thereby, the petitioner was asked to comply with put on dues paid from the second respondent. It is submitted that as per Section 40 read with Section 39 of the ESI Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the principal employer of the factory or establishment covered under the act, is required to pay in respect of every employee both employers' contribution and the employees' contribution at the rates specified in Rule 51 of ESI (General) Rules 1950 (as amended).
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - D Nagarjun - Full Document

Dar-Kush Mishra vs Padam Prakash Gautam on 23 July, 2024

12. The words 'injury caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle' postulates a cause-and-effect relationship between the use of the vehicle and the injury, 'caused by' connotes a 'direct' or 'proximate' relationship of cause and effect. "Arising out of," extends this to a result that is less immediate; it still carries a sense of consequence. It excludes cases of bodily injury in which the use of the vehicle is a merely casual concomitant, not considered to be, in a relevant causal sense, a contributing factor". [Ref. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Union of India, 1986 SCC OnLine Guj 136] ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no.119/2024; Kush Mishra v. Padam Prakash Gautam & Anr. 4 of 9 Pages
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.Kannan vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 4 April, 2024

4. The respondents 1 &2 have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner who has an effective alternative remedy in the form of E.I. Court has rushed to this Court with this Writ Petition invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India and that since the petitioner has not approached E.I. Court under Section 75 of the ESI Act, the Writ Petition has to be dismissed. It is mentioned further in counter affidavit that in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2010 II CLR 236:2010 LLR 722 (Raj.DB) and also as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ESIC Vs. C.C.Santhakumar, in Civil Appeal No.4291 of 2000 dated 21.11.2006 reported in 2007(1) SCC 584, the employer shall move ESI 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.722 of 2024 Court and that writ petition is not maintainable. M/s.Sri Venkateswara Traders was covered under ESI Act, 1948, since 01.05.2013 and based on the survey conducted by Social Security Officer of the respondents 1 & 2 on 15.05.2013, it was found that the petitioner was an employer and has engaged 11 employees, thereby, the petitioner was asked to comply with put on dues paid from the second respondent. It is submitted that as per Section 40 read with Section 39 of the ESI Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the principal employer of the factory or establishment covered under the act, is required to pay in respect of every employee both employers' contribution and the employees' contribution at the rates specified in Rule 51 of ESI (General) Rules 1950 (as amended).
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - D Nagarjun - Full Document
1