Turf clubs and chit fund firms are covered by the ESI Act, the Supreme Court ruled last week in two cases: Bangalore Turf Club vs. ESI and Sri Visalam Chit Funds Ltd vs. ESI. A three-judge bench was dealing with two conflicting streams of judgments of the court on the applicability of the law to the horse racing clubs in different cities. The court gave a liberal interpretation of the word 'shop', not defined in the law. It rejected the argument of the clubs and the chit fund firms that the meaning of shop should be given the traditional meaning. In the chit fund case, it was argued that there was no buying or selling in its offices and it was a matter of contract. Therefore, it was not running shops. The court rejected this contention and asserted that the activities of chit funds would fall within the meaning of shops.
Source: Business Standard. Attached: Copy of Supreme Court order dated 31.7.2014
From India, Malappuram
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1454Source: Business Standard. Attached: Copy of Supreme Court order dated 31.7.2014
From India, Malappuram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Agarwal,
Thank you for sharing the recent judgment passed by the Apex Court in the matter of the ESI Act and its scope of applicability in other sectors. It will be useful for managers, including professionals, who are working in the field of HR domain.
Thanks once again,
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you for sharing the recent judgment passed by the Apex Court in the matter of the ESI Act and its scope of applicability in other sectors. It will be useful for managers, including professionals, who are working in the field of HR domain.
Thanks once again,
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Agrawal,
Since more than 6 months, I have been searching for your email ID. I need your views on the matter below. Kindly reply.
Dear Sir,
I need your help with the queries mentioned below.
We have been covered under ESI since Sep 2009. In Feb 2012, SSO conducted an inspection for the period from Feb 2010 to March 2012. C-18 was issued on 4th March 2013 and received by us on 18th March 2013. The date of payment made as per C-18 is 13th June 2013, with interest and damages paid on 25th July 2013. The said amount was paid in the absence of an Order under 45A.
Q: Is it mandatory to pass an Order Under 45A, even if the Determined Amount of Liability as per C-18 and the interest and damages amount have been paid?
Now, we have received a Second/Another Notice dated 16th Dec. 2013 from Joint Director Vigilance under Section 45(4) of the ESI Act, asking for documents to be ready for inspection for the period April 2009 to March 2011.
Q: Can an inspection be carried out again for the same period, even though the Liability and Interest Plus Damages amounts have been paid?
The dates of receipt of C-18 and 45A under the Notice dated 16th Dec. 2013 are as follows:
- Date of C-18 issued: 18/07/2014 (Received by us on 23/07/2014)
- Date of Order under 45A: 16/10/2014 (Received by us on 17/10/2014)
- Period covered: 01/04/2009 to 30/03/2012 (For short payment - EC)
- Period covered: 01/04/2009 to 30/03/2011 (LC for casual/contractor's employees - Labour Charges under ESI Sec 2(22))
Furthermore, the 45A Order stipulates that if not satisfied, an appeal can be made under Sec 45AA within 60 days.
If we pay 25% or 50% as stipulated in the Order and the Appeal is admitted, can the ESI Authority insist on the interest and damages determined during the inspection during the appeal's pendency?
If we prefer an Appeal before RO/SRO by paying 25% of the demand liability and the Final Order of Appeal is not in our favor, to which Forum does further appeal lie, either EI Court or High Court?
I need help on the above matter. The ESI Amendment Act 2010, which has been notified, came into effect on 01-06-2010.
Q: Which authority is empowered to conduct Test Inspection or Re-inspection?
Q: Under Amendment Section 45(4) of ESI, the Joint Director/Deputy Director Vigilance has the power of Test Inspection/Re-inspection.
If we lose before the entire Forum in the Second Notice as stated above, from which date are the interest and damages derived/charged by the ESI Authority - from the date of receipt of C-18 Notice, from the Order received under 45A, or from either forum's Order date?
I need clarification on how to calculate the Interest and Damages to be paid.
From your viewpoint, what is the preferred option: to make an Appeal or to file a case before the EI Court?
Please provide your valuable inputs on the above submission seriatim. As the time for making an Appeal is running out, I will remain indebted to you for your kindness.
Regards,
Azim
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Since more than 6 months, I have been searching for your email ID. I need your views on the matter below. Kindly reply.
Dear Sir,
I need your help with the queries mentioned below.
We have been covered under ESI since Sep 2009. In Feb 2012, SSO conducted an inspection for the period from Feb 2010 to March 2012. C-18 was issued on 4th March 2013 and received by us on 18th March 2013. The date of payment made as per C-18 is 13th June 2013, with interest and damages paid on 25th July 2013. The said amount was paid in the absence of an Order under 45A.
Q: Is it mandatory to pass an Order Under 45A, even if the Determined Amount of Liability as per C-18 and the interest and damages amount have been paid?
Now, we have received a Second/Another Notice dated 16th Dec. 2013 from Joint Director Vigilance under Section 45(4) of the ESI Act, asking for documents to be ready for inspection for the period April 2009 to March 2011.
Q: Can an inspection be carried out again for the same period, even though the Liability and Interest Plus Damages amounts have been paid?
The dates of receipt of C-18 and 45A under the Notice dated 16th Dec. 2013 are as follows:
- Date of C-18 issued: 18/07/2014 (Received by us on 23/07/2014)
- Date of Order under 45A: 16/10/2014 (Received by us on 17/10/2014)
- Period covered: 01/04/2009 to 30/03/2012 (For short payment - EC)
- Period covered: 01/04/2009 to 30/03/2011 (LC for casual/contractor's employees - Labour Charges under ESI Sec 2(22))
Furthermore, the 45A Order stipulates that if not satisfied, an appeal can be made under Sec 45AA within 60 days.
If we pay 25% or 50% as stipulated in the Order and the Appeal is admitted, can the ESI Authority insist on the interest and damages determined during the inspection during the appeal's pendency?
If we prefer an Appeal before RO/SRO by paying 25% of the demand liability and the Final Order of Appeal is not in our favor, to which Forum does further appeal lie, either EI Court or High Court?
I need help on the above matter. The ESI Amendment Act 2010, which has been notified, came into effect on 01-06-2010.
Q: Which authority is empowered to conduct Test Inspection or Re-inspection?
Q: Under Amendment Section 45(4) of ESI, the Joint Director/Deputy Director Vigilance has the power of Test Inspection/Re-inspection.
If we lose before the entire Forum in the Second Notice as stated above, from which date are the interest and damages derived/charged by the ESI Authority - from the date of receipt of C-18 Notice, from the Order received under 45A, or from either forum's Order date?
I need clarification on how to calculate the Interest and Damages to be paid.
From your viewpoint, what is the preferred option: to make an Appeal or to file a case before the EI Court?
Please provide your valuable inputs on the above submission seriatim. As the time for making an Appeal is running out, I will remain indebted to you for your kindness.
Regards,
Azim
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
Shops & Establish 1.4.10 to 31.3.11 Karnataka.jpg
UP Shops&Estb_Leav es.doc
Forms & Registers Andhra Pradesh Shops & Establishments Act 1988 & Rules 1990.xls