REFERENCE

ISSUE RAISED/FACTS

HELD

SARAT TEXTILES LTD

Vs

JOINT REG.DIRECTOR ESI

[2001(90) FLR 566 HC-CAL-SB]BASED ON AN EARLIER OB RULING

1

2

SECTION 85 B OF ESI ACT EMPOWERS THE ESI AUTHORITIES TO LEVY DAMAGES FROM EMPLOYERS FOR FAILURE TO PAY CONTRIBUTIONS

CAN ESI AUTHORITIES LEVY DAMAGES UNDER 85 B FOR DELAYED REMITTANCE OF CONTRIBUTIONS?

1

2

DELAYED PAYMENT CANNOT BE QUATED WITH FAILURE OF PAYMENT FOR LEVYING DAMAGES UNDER 85 B

WHEN PRE-CONDITIONS FOR INVOCATION OF SECTION 85 B IS NOT FULFILLED EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY BY ESI AUTHORITIES TO LEVY DAMAGES ISNOT PROPER.

NOTE:THE MADRAS HC IN BRITANIA INDUSTRIES VS RD ESIC [2001(90)FLR 661] HAS TAKEN THE OPPOSITE VIEW AND HELD THAT DAMAGES CAN BE LEVIED FOR DELAYED PAYMENT.

ESIC

Vs

STANDARD POTTERY WORKERS

[2001(II)LLJ 1208 (HC-KER-DB)OR

2001(4)LLN 377)

1

2

3

IS THE ESIC DEMAND FOR CONTRIBUTION ON CAUSAL WORKERS DEPLOYED ON:

REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE FACTORY BUILDING AND

CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL JUSTIFIED?

1

WHILE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE WORKERS ON THE EXISTING FACTORY BUILDING CAN BE TREATED AS INCIDENTAL OR CONNECTED FOR ESI COVERAGE PURPOSES CAUSAL WORKERS DEPLOYED ON COMPOUND WALL CONSTRUCTION WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE UNDER SECTION 2(9) AND HENCE NO CONTRIBUTION IS PAYABLE ON THIS CATEGORY OF WORKERS.

NOTE OTHER CASES REFERED:

RD ESIC Vs SOUTH INDIA FLOUR MILLS [1986 (II) LLJ 304-SC]

RD Vs VINOD [1993 III LLJ SUPP-258 (KER)

RD ESIC Vs KERALA WHEAT FLOUR ROLLER MILLS [1997-II LLJ 839 (KER)

ESI CORPN

Vs

PURUSHOTHAMAN

2001(4) LLN 381 [HC-KER-DB]

1

2

AN EMPLOYEE WHILE RETURNING FROM WORK IN THE EMPLOYER PROVIDED TRANSPORT SUSTAINED INJURY AND CLAIMED COMPENSATION FROM ESI

ESI CORPN REFUSED TO ENTERTAIN THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACCIDENT DID NOT HAPPEN IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT AS DEFINED UNDER SECTIONS2(8) & 57-C

1

2

IN VIEW OF THE NEW SECTION 51-C ESI CORPORATION NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER.

NEW SECTION 51-C CLEARLY PROVIDES FOR BENEFIT WHEN AN EMPLOYEE IS TRAVELING IN OMPANY TRANSPORT FROM AND TO , TO WORK.

G RUSHIKESHWARA RAO

Vs

VAZIRSULTAN

TOBACCO INDUSTRIES LTD

2002(92)FLR 964 [HC-AP-DB]

1

2

3

AS PER SECTION 73 OF ESI COVERED EMPLOYEE CANNOT BE PUNISHED WHILE HE IS IN RECEIPT OF SICKNESS BENEFIT.

MANY CHRONIC ABSENTIEES OFTEN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS AND COVER UP THEIR ABSENCE BY SUBMITTING PERIODICAL MEDICAL CERTIFICATES.

TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THEY PROTECTED FROM DISCIPLINARY ACTION BY PRODUCTION OF THESE CERTIFICATES?

1

2

DRAWING ATTENTION TO REGULATES 59, 60,64 THE COURT HELD THAT UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE SUBMITS INTERMEDIATE CERTIFICATES AT INTERVALS OF EVERY 7 DAYS THE PERIOD WHEN HE HAS NOT SUBMITTED SUCH CERTIFICATES WILL BE TREATED AS UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCE.

THOUGH THE PROVISO TO REGULATION 64 AUTHORITIES THE ESI AUTHORITIES TO RATIFY THE NON-PRODUCTION OF INTERMEDIATE CERTIFICATES AT WEEKLY INTERVALS, THE COURT HAS HELD THAT BASED ON CLARIFICATORY LETTERS ISSUED BY ESI AUTHORITIES THAT EMPLOYER WILL NOT BE BARRED UNDER SECTION 73 OR  REGULATION 98 FROM PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SUCH EMPLOYEES FOR SUCH UNAUTHORISED SPELLS OF ABSENCE