Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (2.50 seconds)
Documents citing Chanan Singh Proprietor Chanan Singh ... vs Regional Director, Employees' State ... on 14 December, 1962

E.S.I.C. vs Sri Krishna Bottlers (P) Ltd. on 6 December, 1973

In Chanan Singh & Sons v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation (1962) 24 FJR 371, the Punjab High Court held on the facts of that case, that the members of the line staff of an electric supply company were employees within the meaning of Section 2(9)(i) of the Act, as they were employed by the principal employer and their work was incidental to and connected with the work of the factory.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 53 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Rama Rao P. And Ors. vs Controlling Authority Under P.G. Act ... on 29 March, 1996

"It may be of interest to notice that Falshaw C.J. had earlier taken a different view in Chanan Singh v. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, but said that he had no hesitation in agreeing with Dua J's view because he realised that this earlier view was based on an over simplification. In the latest case the Andhra Pradesh High Court also, following the earlier decision of Madhya Pradesh, Madras and Punjab held that the State Government had exceeded its powers to frame Rule 17 as no such power to prescribe limitation under the provisions of Section 96(1) (b) or under Section 78 (2) can be said to have been delegated to the State Govt. We, however, find that Section 78(2) does not delegate any power to the Government to make rules but only requires the Insurance Court to follow "such procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by the State Govt." which rules can only be made under Section 96 of the Act. In the view we have taken it is unnecessary to examine the question whether legislative practice also leads to the same conclusion though in the Madras and the Punjab decisions that was also one of the grounds given in support of their respective conclusions. The contrary view expressed by a Bench of the Allahabad High Court is in our opinion not good law. We may before parting with this case point out that the legislature has since chosen to specifically prescribe 3 years as limitation period by addition of. Sub-section (1-A) to Section 77 while deleting Section 80. Section 77 (1-A) provides that "Every such application shall be made within a period of three years from the date on which the cause of action arose". By this amendment the claim under Clause (d) as well as the one under Clause (f) of Sub-section (2) of Section 75 which provides for the adjudication of a claim by the Insurance Court for the recovery of any benefit admissible under the Act for which a separate limitation was fixed under Section 80, is now to be made within three years from the date of the accrual of the cause of action. This amendment also confirms the view taken by this Court that the power under Section 96(1) (b) does not empower the Government to prescribe by rules a period of limitation for claims under Section 75."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 28 - Cited by 5 - M H Ansari - Full Document

Employees' State Insurance ... vs Spangles And Glue Manufacturers And ... on 2 February, 1967

18. In the second group of appeals, namely, Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 254, 255 and 256 of 1963, it is common ground that they stand concluded by the decision of the Full Bench in Chanan Singh case 1964-I L.L.J. 314 (vide supra). There is no previous decision in these appeals of this Court of the same nature as was delivered by the Division Bench in 1964-I L.L.J. 314 (vide supra). The only point which Sri B.R. Tuli agitated on behalf of the respondents was the preliminary objection that the appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent were barred. That point has been discussed fully when dealing with the preliminary objection raised in all the seven appeals. These appeals are consequently allowed and the order of the learned single Judge is set aside and that of the Employees' Insurance Court restored. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - A N Grover - Full Document

Boehringer Knoll Ltd. vs Employees' State Insurance ... on 29 November, 1976

The Punjab High Court had taken a view in Chanah Singh and Sons v. Employees' S.I. Corporation had taken the view that the employees of an Electric Supply Company, who were kept in waiting and who go out from time to time when calls were received from the consumers for the purpose of putting things right and whoso work was almost entirely done outside the premises, which constituted the factory, will fall within the definition of 'employee5 in Section 2(9)(i) of the Act; and as such the persons were directly employed by the principal employer and their work was clearly incidental to and connected with the work of the factory.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. & Anr vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 23 September, 1971

It may be of interest to notice that Palshaw C. J. had earlier taken a different view in Chanan Singh v. Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation(1), but said that he, had no hesitation in agreeing with Dua J's view because he realised that his earlier view was based on an over-simplification. In the latest case the Andhra Pradesh High Court also following the earlier decision of Madhya Pradesh, Madras and Punjab held that the State Government had exceeded its powers to frame Rule 17 as no such power to prescribe limitation under the provisions ,of Sec. 96 (1 )
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 93 - P J Reddy - Full Document

A.P. State Electricity Board vs E.S.I.C. on 9 February, 1977

In Chanan Singh and Sons v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation , it was held that a principal employer being a person who actively works on the premises must be included in the figure of twenty referred to in Section 2(12) of the Act. It was pointed out that the expression "persons" was deliberately used instead of "employees" in the definition of factory and hence even persons who are not employees can be taken into consideration as long as they were working in the premises.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Hardev Singh vs Employees State Insurance ... on 10 October, 1980

On the basis of that record he deposed that the total number of his employees never exceeded 14. No question was put to him with regard to the status of the contractors. The very fact that they have been shown in a separate category leads to an inference that these contractors were not under the control of the manager of the appellant Durga Metal Works and were independent contractors regarded as independent entities. Chanan Singh v. Regional Director Employee's Corporation, Amritsar also cannot retrieve the position either. In that ruling, it was held that even if an employer was working in the factory, he too is to be taken as a person working in the premises for purposes of coverage under the Act. Ours is not a case of a proprietor of the factory working as an employer in the factory. The learned court refused to look into the documents produced by the appellant before it on the ground that production of these documents at that stage could be of no value because the same were not produced by the petitioner before the inspector and were not produced even before the Corporation in pursuance of notice Ex. R. 3. I do not think that if the documents were not produced before the Corporation, the appellant was precluded from producing and proving these documents, before the court. The court has not said that they were not or could not be considered to be, genuine documents.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next