Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Pathological Laboratories Covered under Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 from 2007, Not 2002: SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has settled a long-standing dispute over the coverage of pathological laboratories under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The judgment delivered by Justices Rajesh Bindal and Hima Kohli on August 2, 2023, clarified that such establishments are covered under the Act from September 6, 2007, and not from November 22, 2002, as previously claimed.

The case in question, Civil Appeal No. 3368 of 2012, involved the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESI) and M/s. Endocrinology and Immunology Lab. The Corporation had challenged a Kerala High Court order that allowed the respondent's appeal, asserting that the provisions of the Act would apply to the laboratory from 2007 onwards.

The key issue was whether the respondent establishment could be considered a 'shop' under the 1976 notification issued by the Government of Kerala, which covered establishments with 10 or more employees. The Corporation also relied on a circular dated November 22, 2002, which modified an earlier memo and sought to include pathological laboratories under the definition of 'shop'.

However, the Supreme Court, in its judgment, thoroughly examined the relevant provisions of the Act and the notifications involved. The Court concluded that the establishment in question did not fall within the definition of a 'factory' under Section 1(4) of the Act, as it did not involve a manufacturing process. The Court also found that the term 'shop' was not explicitly defined in the Act and rejected the Corporation's contention based on the 1976 notification.

Bench clarified, "The respondent establishment will not be covered under the provisions of Section 1(4) of the Act as it will not fall within the definition of a 'factory'." The Court further stated, "The argument raised by the appellant that the respondent establishment should be deemed to be covered in terms of the Notification issued on 27.05.1976 read with the Circular dated 22.11.2002 issued by the Corporation, is merely to be noticed and rejected."

The decisive factor came from the Notification dated 06.09.2007, issued by the Government of Kerala, which explicitly included medical institutions, including pathological laboratories, under the ambit of the Act where 20 or more persons were employed. The Court acknowledged that this notification clarified the coverage of the respondent establishment from September 6, 2007.

Supreme Court has put to rest the ambiguity surrounding the coverage of pathological laboratories under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The ruling will have far-reaching implications for similar establishments across the country and provide clarity on their compliance with the Act.

Date of Decision: August 2, 2023

E.S.I. CORPORATION, REP. BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR  vs M/s. ENDOCRINOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY LAB 

Latest Legal News