Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 748 (MP)

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, INDORE v. HIND SYNTAX LTD.

2003-06-23

A.M.SAPRE

body2003
A. M. SAPRE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the E. S. I. Corporation under Section 82 of E. S. I. Act against the order dated 16/03/1999 passed by the Labour Court, Indore, in case No. 17/1992 (E. S. I. Act) whereby it is held that respondent company is not required to extend/give coverage of the E. S. I. Act to their registered office at Dewas. ( 2 ) IN short, the question that arose for consideration before the Labour Court exercising its powers under the provisions of e. S. I. Act was whether respondent which is a company is under obligation to comply with the provisions of E. S. I. Act to the employees working in their registered office situated at dewas. By impugned order the Court held that the Act has no application so far as the office of Respondent at Dewas is concerned. Accordingly the notice issued by the appellant to Respondent to ensure compliance of the e. S. I. Act to their office at Dewas was held illegal giving rise to filing of this appeal and contending that the Act has its application even to the registered office of the Company which is situated at Dewas and hence the impugned order be set aside and, the respondent be directed to ensure its compliance. ( 3 ) HEARD Sri Vivek Sharan, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the Respondent. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant placing reliance on three decision of Supreme court Cochin Shipping Co. v. E. S. I. Corporation AIR 1993 SC 252 : 1992 (4) SCC 245 : 1993-II-LLJ-795, Kirloskar Consultants ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation 2001 (1) SCC 57 : 2000-II- LLJ-1657, and southern Agencies, Rajamundry v. A. P. Employees State Insurance Corporation 2001 (1)scc 411 : 2001-I-LLJ-161 contended that impugned order needs to be set aside. ( 5 ) I have gone through the impugned order, i am not satisfied the way, the issue was decided and dealt with by the learned Labour Judge in ignorance to the law laid down and explained by the Apex Court on the issue in question. ( 5 ) I have gone through the impugned order, i am not satisfied the way, the issue was decided and dealt with by the learned Labour Judge in ignorance to the law laid down and explained by the Apex Court on the issue in question. Indeed, it is obligatory upon all the Courts, Tribunals, entrusted with the quasi-judicial power to decide the rights of the citizens under any Act to ensure compliance and follow the law laid down by the supreme Court and High Court on the question which comes for consideration before them. Indeed, this alone should be the guiding factor while deciding the question. I am constrained to observe that no efforts were made by the learned judge of the Labour Court to even find out whether the question which he is called upon to decide has been at any point of time subject matter of any judicial decisions of any Court and if so how far and to what extent it can be used for deciding the question involved in this case. The decision referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the Appellant and in particular the decision of Supreme Courl rendered in the case of Southern Agencies (supra) has admittedly material bearing over the question involved in the case. This Courl would not do the job of Labour Court in appeal because it is for the Labour Court to first apply its mind in the context of the law laid down by the Apex Court and then give its finding on merits. It is then such finding can be examined by this Court in appeal. ( 6 ) I am, therefore, constrained to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. As a consequence, I remand the case to the labour Court to again decide the case in the light of what I have observed (supra) and keeping in view the law laid down by the supreme Court in aforementioned cases and in particular case of Southern Agencies (supra), let this be done within three months after notice to respondent because none appeared for them before me while the case was being heard. Record of the case be sent back to concerned labour Court forthwith to enable him to decide the case as observed. ( 7 ) C. C. WITHIN a week. .