|
handloor
house,
ernakulam
vs
regional
director, esi corporation [1999 (82)
FLR 618 SC]
or
whirlpool
of india ltd
vs
esi
corporation [2000 (96) FJR 404 SC]
|
what
are the items of remuneration that get
attracted by the term ‘wages’
under
the esi act or what is
the test to determine the elements of ‘wages’
that would attract esi contribution
|
section 2(22) of the esi act define wages·
this definition defines ‘wages’ is in three parts
(a) any payment paid or payable for fulfilling the contract of
employment
(b) payments for authorised leave, lockout or strike which is not illegal or lay-off
compensation
(c) any other additional remuneration paid (though not payable or obligated to pay) if such payments are made at intervals not exceeding two months
Note: any incentive / allowance which the employeris bound to pay or payable under the terms of employement will be wages even if disbursed after two
months.
any payment which is not obligatory under the terms of employment but paid at inervals of more than two months will not attract esi contribution
|
|
esi
corporation
vs
bharat
cement pipe industries [2000(84) flr
971 hc-ap]
or
transport
corporation
ofindia
vs
esi
corporation [1999(4) lln 127 hc-ap]
|
-
are ‘hamalis’
[loading & unloading workers] to
be treated as ‘employees’ under the esi act by the principal employer
|
-
‘hamalis’
even
if not engaged directly by principal
employer would be employees under the
act and they are to be covered.
|
|
esi
corporation
vs
surya
printing industries [2000-i-llj-387 hc-pa&ha]
|
are
‘hamalis’
‘casual workers’ required
to be covered under the esi act by the
principal employer
|
since the job was sporadic and
the coolies were available for work by
other employers, they are not even
casual workers and no coverage under
esi required.
[in
this judgement the argument was based
on the kerala high court decision in
esi corporation vs p.r harihari
rao 1986 where the kerala high court
held that such workers are not ‘employed’
but only ‘engaged’
by the principal employer]
|
|
transport
corporation
of india
vs
esi
corporation [2000(i)lln 70 SC]
|
under section 1(5) state
government can extend the coverage of
the esi act to ‘other
categories of establishments’
a.p. government issued
notification under section 1(5)
covering the registered office of
the
t.c.i. sITUATED IN A.P.
WILL THIS NOTIFICATION REQUIRE
COVERAGE OF THE EMPLOYEES WORKING IN
OTHER BRANCHES SITUATED OUTSIDE A.P.
STATE
FOR
EXAMPLE, IN MAHARASHTRA EVEN WITHOUT
NOTIFICATION BY MAHARASHTRA GOVERNMENT
|
HELD THAT BRANCH OFFICES
OUTSIDE A.P. WOULD ALSO NEED TO BE
COVERED If SUCH BRANCH OFFICES HAVE A
FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY WITH THE HEAD
OFFICE OR THEY ARE DIRECTLY CONTROLLED
BY THE HEAD OFFICE.
|
|
tata
tea ltd
vs
esi
corporation [2000(i) lln 616 hc-kar]
|
-
TATA TEA OPERATING IN BANGALORE
WAS COVERED UNDER ESI
-
THEY LET OUT ON CONTRACT TEA
PACKAGING TO AN ESTABLISHMENT AT
COIMBATORE
-
ARE COIMBATORE EMPLOYEES TO BE
COVERED UNDER ESI BY BANGALORE
ESTABLISHMENT
|
AS TATA TEA BANGALORE IS NOT
SUPERVISING THE PACKING OPERATIONS IN
COIMBATORE SUCH EMPLOYEES WOULD NOT
FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE
UNDER SECTION 2(9)(II) OF THE ESI ACT.
HENCE NO ESI OBLIGATION WILL
LIE ON TATA TEA BANGALORE FOR
EMPLOYEES AT COIMBATORE
(SEE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN
[1992(I)LLN 353] CALCUTTA ELECTRICITY
BOARD CASE AS TO WHAT WILL AMOUNT TO
SUPERVISION BY PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER]
|
