State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication

Supreme Court Rules Nagar Nigam’s Workshop as 'Factory' Under ESI Act for Employing Over Ten Workers

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that the workshop operated by Nagar Nigam Allahabad qualifies as a 'factory' under the Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948, reversing the Allahabad High Court’s decision. This judgment mandates that Nagar Nigam Allahabad must comply with ESI Act provisions, including making statutory contributions for its employees.

The case, The Employees State Insurance Corporation Ltd. v. Nagar Nigam Allahabad and Anr., stems from a long-standing dispute over whether the Nagar Nigam's workshop, which repairs and maintains vehicles, falls under the definition of a 'factory' as per the ESI Act. Initially, the Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of Nagar Nigam, exempting it from the Act’s coverage. The Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) challenged this decision, leading to the present appeal in the Supreme Court.

Definition of 'Factory': The Supreme Court concluded that the Nagar Nigam’s workshop meets the definition of a 'factory' under Section 2(12) of the ESI Act, as it employs more than ten workers and engages in a manufacturing process.

High Court’s Error in Jurisdiction: The Court observed that the Allahabad High Court erred in exercising its writ jurisdiction without directing Nagar Nigam to seek remedies before the Insurance Court, which is the appropriate forum for such disputes.

Historical Compliance: The Supreme Court noted that Nagar Nigam had previously complied with the ESI Act requirements until 1978, thereby acknowledging its workshop as a factory under the Act.

Legal Precedents: Citing the Employers’ State Insurance Corporation v. Kakinada Municipality and J.P. Lights India v. Regional Director E.S.I. Corporation, Bangalore, the Court reaffirmed that workshops undertaking repairs and maintenance fall within the ambit of 'manufacturing processes'.

Justice Sandeep Mehta, delivering the judgment, emphasized the statutory definitions and the precedents which clearly bring workshops like that of Nagar Nigam under the ESI Act. The Court criticized the High Court for bypassing the established remedy mechanism provided under the Act, noting that disputes involving complex factual determinations should be adjudicated by the Insurance Court.

The Court also highlighted that the respondent’s failure to secure an exemption under Section 90 of the ESI Act from the appropriate government further solidified their obligation to comply with the Act’s provisions.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms the broad applicability of the ESI Act to various types of workshops, ensuring that employees engaged in such establishments are afforded statutory benefits. This decision not only reinstates the ESIC’s authority to enforce compliance but also sets a precedent for similar cases involving municipal and local bodies.

With this ruling, Nagar Nigam Allahabad is directed to approach the Insurance Court for further resolution, upholding the principle that factual disputes in such cases must be meticulously examined by specialized tribunals.

Date of Decision: May 17, 2024

The Employees State Insurance Corporation Ltd. v. Nagar Nigam Allahabad and Anr.

Latest Legal News