No Tags Found!

Dear Members,

Attached is a Supreme Court judgment under the ESI Act that lacks detail regarding a new dispute, necessitating a comprehensive discussion. I kindly request respected members to contribute an article on this matter in the current thread.

HIREN CHHEDA
09821078457

From India, Mumbai
Attached Files (Download Requires Membership)
File Type: pdf SC 09 ESI IMP on Applicability.pdf (355.0 KB, 2766 views)

Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)

Hi Hiren, I think these are an important judgements and hope this will help to all HR & IR professionals. Avinash Kanoray
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)

In my opinion, this judgment has a peculiar set of facts such as daily employees or wages are engaged for work. The management could not identify them daily and also feels that they are unable or unwilling to get engaged daily. Thus, impleading the workers as parties to the proceeding would arise.

In another regular case, like a dispute over extra or incorrect contribution calculations, the impleading of workers would not arise.

From India, Tiruchchirappalli
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)

Dear Friends,

I want to clear my doubt on the following issues: If any additional construction work is being done on the premises of the factory, is ESI payable for contract labor engaged in the construction work?

From India, Shillong
Attached Files (Download Requires Membership)
File Type: pdf SUPREME COURT-STAY ORDER (ESI IN CONST.) UPLOADED INTO ESI PORTAL.pdf (220.3 KB, 261 views)

Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)

Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.






Contact Us Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2025 CiteHR ®

All Copyright And Trademarks in Posts Held By Respective Owners.