4	REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESI   Vs   S.S.R.S. BROTHERS MADURAI   2000(85) FLR 735 [HC-MAD]	1   2      3       4	THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER WAS A DEALER IN GODREJ FURNITURE   THEY HAD ENGAGED A SPECIALISED AGENCY FOR LOADING UNLOADING THE FURNITURE   ESI CORPORATION DEMANDED ESI COVERAGE OF THE CONTRACT LOADING AND UNLOADING WORKERS   COMPANY RESISTED IT	1	a       b     c     d	THOUGH THE SUPREME COURT IN RAJKAMAL TRANSPORT CASE [1996(73) FLR 1718] HAD HELD THAT HEAD LOAD WORKERS ARE TO BE COVERED UNDER ESI, THE MADRAS  HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE RULING IN THAT CASE IS NOT APPLICABLE HERE  BECAUSE:   PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER WAS NOT SUPERVISING OR CONTROLLING THE WORK OF THE HAMALS [HEAD LOAD WORKERS]   AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY WAS SUPERVISING THE WORK   THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER WAS NOT AWARE OF THE NUMBER OF WORKMEN EMPLOYED OR THEIR WAGE PARTICULARS ETC   THERE WAS NO MASTER AND SERVANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HAMALS AND THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER
5	REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESI   Vs   SAM SONS RUBBER INDUSTRIES  LTD   2000 (4) LLN 927 [HC-MAD]	1     2    3     4	THE ESTABLISHMENT HAD MADE DELAY IN SUBMISSION OF ESI CARDS FOR PERIOD 1976-78   THE CORPORATION CLAIMED DAMAGES FOR THE DELAY IN 1980   FOR NON PAYMENT OF DAMAGES A RECOVERY PROCEEDING ORDER WAS ISSUED IN 1986   THERE IS TIME LIMITATION OF THREE YEARS UNDER SECTION 77(IA).  IS THIS LIMITATION TO BE RECKONNED FROM 1980 OR 1986 ?	1       2        3     4	AS PER SECTION 77(IA) OF THE ACT THE CORPORATION HAS TO ENFORCE ITS CLAIM WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE OR ELSE IT BECOMES TIME BARRED   THE CONTENTION OF ESI COR-PORATION THAT THE  THREE YEAR LIMITATION IS TO BE RECKONNED FROM 1986 WAS DISALLOWED   LIMITATION OF THREE YEARS TO BE RECKONNED FROM INITIAL DEMAND IN 1980 AND NOT FROM 1986   RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN 1986 IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 77 (IA)
6	SREE SIVALAKSHMI MILLS   Vs   ESI CORPN (MADRAS)   2001 (I) LLN 466 [HC-MAD]	1     2       3     4	ESI CORPORATION FOUND THAT THE EMPLOYER HAD NOT PAID ANY ESI CONTRIBUTIONS ON ABOUT Rs.11 LAKHS SPENT ON BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES   EMPLOYER CONTEDED THAT THE WHOLE AMOUNT WAS NOT WAGES AND A LARGE SHARE OF IT WAS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS   EMPLOYER COULD NOT GIVE ANY PROOF OR BREACK UP OF THE COST OF MATERIAL OR THE LABOUR ELEMENT   IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES CAN ESI CORPORATION DEMAND CONTRIBUTIONS ON THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF Rs.11 LAKHS ?	1             2	EVENTHOUGH THERE IS NO GUIDELINES IN THE ACT THE COUNSEL FOR ESI ADMITTED IN COURT THAT THE INTERNAL CIRCULARS ISSUED BY ESI CORPORATION STIPULATES THAT IN SUCH CASES WHERE THE LABOUR ELEMENT CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, 25% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT SHOULD BE TREATED AS THE WAGE ELEMENT.   ACCORDINGLY ONLY 25% OF THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST NEED BE TREATED AS WAGES AND ESI CONTRIBUTION PAYABLE MUST BE COMPUTED ONLY ON THIS 25% AND NOT ON THE FULL AMOUNT.