Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 312 (MP)

M. P. S. R. T. C. v. Employees, S. I. Corporation

1995-03-13

J.G.CHITRE

body1995
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation challenging the order of Labour Court, Indore in the matter Case No. 11/E.S.I./82 dated 12.3.1985. The Depot Manager of M.P. State Road Transport Corporation; Dewas challenged the order of recovery of an amount by Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) under section 75 of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The ma in contention was that the employees working in Dewas Depot of the appellant were not concerned with the workshop and, therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay any amount in respect of provisions of the Act. The record shows that on 26.11.76, 1.12.77 and 2.12.77 the Inspector of respondent Corporation visited the said depot and carried inspection. He found some defaults and, therefore, a recovery of amount of Rs. 11,547.95 p. was directed to be recovered from the present appellant. A contention was raised by the present appellant that the notification in question was made applicable only from 27.2.79 and, therefore, the said amount was not recoverable from the present appellant in respect of period before 27.2.79. While arguing this appeal Shri Dhupar, counsel for the appellant reiterated this contention and submitted that the impugned order being illegal needs to be set aside by allowing this appeal. He further argued that the employees working in the depot would not be coming under category of the persons who are working in the workshop of the said depot. Shri Behal, learned counsel appearing for respondent pointed out that provisions of section 2 (9) of the Act make it very clear that the employees who are connected with the administration of the factory or establishment or any part of department or branch thereof connected with the purchase of raw material, of the distribution or sale of the products of, the factory or establishment would be coming under the category of employees who are working in workshop. He submitted that, therefore, the Labour Court has committed no error in giving the verdict against the appellant holding that the appellant was liable to make the payment of said amount mentioned above. Shri Behal placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of The Employees of the Nagpur Electric light & Power Co. Ltd. v. The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corp. Shri Behal placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of The Employees of the Nagpur Electric light & Power Co. Ltd. v. The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corp. Ltd. ( AIR 1967 SC 1364 ) for substantiating his argument. He submitted that as the impugned order is correct, proper and legal, this appeal be dismissed. The learned Labour Court has pointed out in paragraph 5 of the order that since 27.8.1961 the provisions of the Act were made applicable to Dewas Municipal Corporation limits as well as Balgarh, Shankargarh, Dewas Senior and Dewas proper. The Labour Court also pointed out that in view of that, the employees working in all factories within the limits of the area mentioned above were under the cover of provisions of the Act. However, it pointed out that by gazette notification dated 5.1.1979, the provisions of the Act were applicable from 24.2.1979 to offices not connected with the factories. Learned counsel Shri Dhupar pointed out this and submitted that in view of this situation the employees working in the depot of the present appellant would not be coming under the perview of the provisions or the Act. Shri Behal, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out the provisions of section 2 (9) of the Act countering to the argument which has been advanced by Shri Dhupar, counsel for the appellant. It is pertinent to note that the Labour Court pointed out in paragraph 9 that the employees who were concerned with the matter were from supervisory staff, central staff, security staff, G.A.D. office staff and accounts stall connected with the workshop or present appellant. The Labour Court also pointed out in that paragraph that witness Ramnath who was working as head Clerk with the appellant had admitted in his evidence that said workshop was under the said depot as well as under its administrative control. It has been pointed out that the persons working in the said depot were doing work of account, payment of salary and wages, bonus etc. to the persons who were working in the said workshop. It was further pointed out that the security staff working in the said depot was concerned with the security of the vehicles kept in the said workshop of the depot as well as spare parts connected with those vehicles. to the persons who were working in the said workshop. It was further pointed out that the security staff working in the said depot was concerned with the security of the vehicles kept in the said workshop of the depot as well as spare parts connected with those vehicles. When provisions of the Act are to be interpreted, they will have to be interpreted by leaning towards the employees and if that is done, it will have to be held that even prior to 24.2.79 but after 27.8.61 those provisions were applicable to such employees who are going even incidental work which was connected with the workshop. It is to be noted that from the record it is depicted that the employees who were working in the depot of the present appellant were concerned with the work which was being carried on in the said workshop. The learned Labour Court has dealt with all important facets of the matter properly in the judgment by sufficient discussion. I do not find any perversity in it. It is to be noted that the findings recorded by the Labour Court in respect of points which are being agitated in this appeal are coming into category of findings of fact. The points which have been urged here do not assume the nature of substantial question of law. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court quoted supra and the discussion made above, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed with costs. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee as per schedule or certificate.