Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

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