Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Gnanambikai Mills Ltd. vs Employees' State Insurance ... on 7 July, 1969

Dhala Tanning Company, Gemini Studios, ... vs Employees State Insurance Corporation ... on 6 March, 1973

In Gnanambikai Mills v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation (1970) 2 L.L.J. 233. Ramamurti, J. has held that the provisions of the Act would not apply to casual workers. But we think it is not necessary to go into this aspect of the matter because, from the materials on record, we have to proceed on the footing that there were really 20 permanent workers in the premises in question. The Insurance Court has pointed out that apart from the 17 workers shown as permanent workers, there were admittedly three members of the supervisory staff by name Narayanan Nair, Vaidyanathan and Ansar who gave evidence as R.W. 1. The Insurance Court has pointed out that they are also employees. The Insurance Court, after referring to Exhibits B-1 to B-4 and B-7 to B-10 relied on by the appellant, says : "It is evident from some of the entries in these Exhibits coupled with the fact that there were 3 other monthly paid employees, viz., P. Narayanan Nair, Vaidyanathan and the witness himself, the total number of employees at a time exceeded 20 and more on specified dates". It was never contended before us that this observation of the Insurance Court is wrong. We hold, therefore, that there is no merit in C.M.A. No. 12 of 1968 and that has to be dismissed.
Madras High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Kamarajan Textiles, Through Its ... vs Employees State Insurance ... on 24 August, 1976

In that view, the learned Judges had left that question open, though they have referred to the decision of Ramamurti, J., in Gnanambikai Mills v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation (1970) 2 L.L.J. 233, holding that the provisions of the Act would not apply to casual workers. Though the appellant has raised a contention before the lower Court that some of the persons employed by him are casual workers and, therefore, they cannot be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether his premises is a factory or not, it has not specifically raised the question that even if the casual workers can be taken into account for the purpose of finding out whether 20 or more persons are working in the factory, such casual workers are not entitled to the coverage under the Act. It is not, therefore, open to the appellant to raise the contention in this appeal. It is, however, open to the appellant to raise specifically the question that a particular person employed as casual worker is not an employee in respect of which contribution is payable by him, by filing a separate application under Section 75.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited vs The Regional Provident Fund on 14 June, 2002

12. By referring the earlier decision of the Supreme Court, namely Braithwate and Company (India) Ltd., vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation (AIR 1968 SC 413) learned Judge of this Court (Y. Venkatachalam,J.,) in 1998 (3) L.L.N. 402 (Gnanambigai Mills Ltd., Coimbatore vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras) has held that ad hoc allowance and incentive earnings are not part of the wages.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1