Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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