Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.48 seconds)The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
Harihar Polyfibres vs The Regional Director, Esi Corporation on 4 September, 1984
As I have discussed earlier, the concept of wages has been liberally construed
by the judgements of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, as including any
kind of remunerations received out of a contract or as an adhoc payment for
work done outside the contract including overtime, provided it is received at
an intervals of not more than two months. Now, for the purpose of adjudging
the eligibility of an employee to be covered under the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 overtime payments have to be excluded to compute the
wage of an employee. Necessarily, to have a harmonious result the definition
of overtime has to be taken in a very narrow sense. It is to be confined to those
payments received for extra hours of work done during the day or in a week. It
should only apply to the kind of work done for a limited number of hours in a
day or done for part of a day in excess of prescribed hours. It appears to be
pro rata work at pro rata rates, in terms of hours, in a day or a week in excess
of the prescribed period. If the extra work is done during normal working
hours in a paid holiday, it has to be taken as the wages under section 2 (9) (b)
of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
There is nothing on record to show that the nature of the work demanded a
milk supplement to maintain the health of the employees. Only, if it was so
required the milk allowance was to be excluded from being considered as
wages in M/s Harihar Polyfibres v. The Regional Director E.S.I.
Corporation reported in AIR 1984 SC 1680, the Supreme Court has gone to
the extent of saying that night shift allowance heat, gas and dust allowance will
be counted as wages. Milk allowance in the circumstances of this case does not
in my opinion, fall within the category of a sum paid "to defray special
expenses entailed on him (employee) by the nature of his employment".
For all those reasons, both the writ applications succeed. Order in terms of
prayer (b), quashing the order mentioned therein and in terms of prayer (f)
thereof, in the first writ application (WP No. 1992 of 1995).Order in terms of
prayer (ii)quashing the order mentioned therein and order in terms of prayer
Employees State Insurance Corpn. vs Malabar Cashewnut And Allied Products ... on 19 November, 1992
Remuneration paid to an employee for
working on a holiday constitutes wage as held by a division bench of the
Kerala High Court in The Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation Trichur v.
Raj Cashew Co. reported in 1991 LAB I.C. 1989, in an unreported decision
of the Supreme Court dated 3rd December, 1997 in Civil Appeal NO. 3851-53
of 1993 Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Malabar Cashew &
Allied Products following 1997 7 SCC 665 and by a single judge of the
Karnataka High Court in ESI Corporation, Hubli v. Belgaum Milk Union
reported in 2003 LAB I.C 2589] This was also held by our court in
Employees State Insurance Corporation v Ramadhar Jaiswal & Ors.
reported in 2004 III Labour Law Journal page 998.
Philips India Ltd vs Labour Court, Madras & Ors on 26 March, 1985
In M/s Philips India Ltd. v. Labour Court, Madras reported in 1985 LAB
IC 854 the Supreme Court interpreted overtime to mean working hours in
excess of prescribed working hours. The Supreme Court opined as follows, in
the context of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947.
Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947
Section 59 in The Factories Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
E.S.I. Corpn. vs Raj Cashew Company on 10 April, 1991
Remuneration paid to an employee for
working on a holiday constitutes wage as held by a division bench of the
Kerala High Court in The Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation Trichur v.
Raj Cashew Co. reported in 1991 LAB I.C. 1989, in an unreported decision
of the Supreme Court dated 3rd December, 1997 in Civil Appeal NO. 3851-53
of 1993 Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Malabar Cashew &
Allied Products following 1997 7 SCC 665 and by a single judge of the
Karnataka High Court in ESI Corporation, Hubli v. Belgaum Milk Union
reported in 2003 LAB I.C 2589] This was also held by our court in
Employees State Insurance Corporation v Ramadhar Jaiswal & Ors.
reported in 2004 III Labour Law Journal page 998.