Inadequate Explanation Under Section 313 CrPC Cannot Be Foundation For Conviction If Prosecution Fails To Prove Case: Allahabad High Court No-Confidence Motion In Housing Societies Fails If 2/3 Majority Not Met; Fractions In Voting Threshold Cannot Be Rounded Down: Bombay High Court Successor Rent Controller Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Act As Appellate Court Under Review Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Restores Eviction Order Article 21 Overrides PMLA Section 45 Rigors In Cases Of Unduly Long Incarceration Without Trial: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To SSC Scam ‘Middleman’ Unregistered Family Partition Deed Recording Past Oral Arrangement Doesn't Require Compulsory Registration: Gujarat High Court Private Banks Acting As Authorised Dealers Under FEMA Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction; Can Refuse Transactions For 'Sanctions-Related' Concerns: Gauhati High Court Non-Examination Of Investigating Officer Not Fatal To Prosecution Case If Eyewitness Testimony Is Credible & Trustworthy: Jharkhand High Court Mere Denial Of Signature Insufficient When Execution Is Proved Through Endorsements: Karnataka High Court Restores Specific Performance Decree Sectarianism Claims Can't Discredit Reliable Testimony Of Child Sexual Abuse Victim: Kerala High Court Upholds Madrassa Teacher's Conviction State Must Prove Specific 'Public Interest' To Exempt Projects From Social Impact Assessment Under Section 10A Land Acquisition Act: Telangana High Court Or 2 Rule 2 CPC |Failure To Seek Specific Performance In Earlier Injunction Suit Bars Subsequent Claim; Readiness & Willingness Must Be Continuous: Madras High Court Exoneration In Departmental Proceedings Does Not Result In Automatic Discharge In Criminal Case: Orissa High Court History Sheet Can Be Opened On 'Reasonable Belief' Even Without Conviction, But Must Be Reviewed After 7 Years Of Good Conduct: Rajasthan High 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