goodyear ltd

vs

regional director esi [1997 (76) flr 238 sc-db]

does the law of limitation apply on esi authorities claim for recovery of contributions from principal employer

section 77 of the esi act was amended wef 20.10.1989 and a new section 77(1A) (b) was introduced incorporating a 3 year limitation for recovery of disputed claims by esi. however for claims, of dues for periods prior to 20.10.1989.  no limitation (3 years) shall apply and recovery can be made as per old law.

western india plywood ltd

vs

ahokan [1998 ilw-322 sc-db]

can an employee who sustained an industrial injury and has been given esi compensation file a civil suit against the employer for additional compensation

section 53 of the esi act specifically protects the employer against any accident compensation claims from insured employees.  no claim is maintainable.

esi corporation

vs

apex engg pvt ltd [1998 illj-274 sc-db]

esi act is applicable to establishments.

employing 20 or more employees. is the act applicable to an establishment having 19 employees and a managing director.

for determining coverage of establishment.  all paid employees to be included.  but contri-bution  is payable only in the case of employees falling below the qualifying wage limit.  this is a judgement over ruling the bombay & calcutta high courts stating that the md cannot be counted.

mm suri & associates vs

esi corporation 1997 (76) flr 937 HC-DEL-SB

the company employed 24 persons of whom 13 persons were drawing WAGES ABOVE THE ESI WAGE CEILING. IS THE COMPANY REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH ESI ACT /

after the amendment to section 2 (12) in 1975 only employees drawing wages DRAWING WAGES BELOW THE CUT OFF SALARY LIMIT CAN BE COUNTED FOR DECIDING COVERAGE. BASED ON EMPLOYMENT OF 20 OR MORE PERSONS.

THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESI

VS

FRANCIS DECOSTA [1996 (74) FLR 2326 SC-D.B.]

IS THE FAMOUS SC JUDGE-MENT IN BEST VS. mrs. agnes of 1964 (3) scr 930 on “notioal extension of premises” on accidents occurring outside the factory premises at public places still valid ?

the scope of the best case of 1964. has been considerably watered down.  now compensation for accidents happening outside the establishment premises can be claimed only if the injured was on the company transport or the injured was on the public place as part of his duties.