Labour Law Case Analysis

PROJECT
by tushar Kaushal
______________________________________________________________
Submission date: 01-Sep-2021 12:34AM (UTC+0530)

Submission ID: 1638385994
File name: Labour_Law_Case_Analysis_3115.docx (14.59K)
Word count: 850
Character count: 3429
LABOUR LAW
NAGPUR ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER VS ESIC AIR 1967 SC 1364
Submitted by:
TUSHAR KAUSHAL
Division: D Prn: 17010223115
Batch: 2017-2022
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA Symbiosis

International (Deemed University), Pune
In
August, 2021
Under the guidance of
Mr. Purvish Malkan
(Course In-Charge)
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

CERTIFICATE
The Project entitled "NAGPUR ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER VS
ESIC AIR 1967 SC 1364” submitted to the Symbiosis Law School,
NOIDA for the subject Labour Law as part of internal assessment is
based on my original work carried out under the guidance of
Professor Mr. Pur vish Malkan (course in charge) from July 2021 to
December 2021 .
The research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any
degree. The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in
the submission has been duly acknowledged. I understand that I
myself could be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if
any, detected later on.
DATE: 30.09.2021
NAGPUR ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER VS ESIC
In the Supreme Court of India: AIR 1967 SC 1364
Petitioner: Nagpur Electric Light and Power
Respondent: ESIC
Date of Judgement: 2nd day of March, 1967.
Bench: K.N Wanchoo, R.S Bachawat and V. Bhargava
FACTS
The question in issue in these appeals is whether certain employees of the Nagpur Electric
Light & Power Co. Ltd., are employees within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Employees
State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948). The company and the employees filed two separate
applications before the Employees' Insurance Court under Section 75 of the Act for the
determination of the question. Their case is that out of the five categories of staff mentioned
in Appendices I to V to the Company's petition, those connected with the receiving station
and workshop (Appendices I and II) were employees within the meaning of Section 2(9), but
those connected with the engineering, stores and outdoor work, meter consumers and
allocation departments and administration (Appendices II, IV and V) were not such
employees. The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation contested the
applications, but he admitted that the workers of the categories mentioned in Items 5 to 14 of
Appendix IV and Items 1, 7 and 8 of Appendix V were not employees within the meaning of
Section 2(9).
ISSUE
Whether certain employees of the company like engineers, draughtsmen, clerks, accountants
etc. mentioned in the company's petition before the Employees' Insurance Court, were
'Employees' or not within the meaning of s.2(9) of the Employees Insurance Act, 1948.
RULE
Section 2(9) in The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
Section 2(12) in The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
Section 75 in The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
The Factories Act, 1948
ANALYSIS
The definition of employee in s.2(9) may be contrasted with that of a worker in s.2 (1) of the
Factories Act 1948, which is in these terms worker' means a person employed, directly or
through any agency, whether for wages or not, in any manufacturing process, or in cleaning
any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process, or in any other kind
of work incidental to, or connected with, the manufacturing process, or the subject of the
manufacturing process;"
The definition of an employee in the Employees State Insurance Act is wider than that of a
worker in the Factories Act. The object of the Factories Act is to secure the health, safety,
welfare, proper working hours, leave and other benefits for workers employed in factories.
The benefit of this Act does not extend to field workers working outside the factory, see the
State, of Uttar Pradesh v. M. P. Singh. The object of the Employees' State Insurance Act is to
secure sickness, maternity, disablement and medical benefits to employees of factories and
establishments and dependents' benefits to their dependants. The benefit of this Act extends
inter alia to the employees mentioned in s.2 (9) (i) whether working inside the factory or
establishment or elsewhere.
Section 2(9) deals with three classes of employees. We are concerned with the class of
employees mentioned in section 2(9)(i). The courts below concurrently found that all the
workers of the disputed categories are persons employed for wages in or in connection with
work of the company's factory and are directly employed by the company on work of or
incidental to or connected with the work of the factory. Some of them do the work in the
factory and some work elsewhere, but they are all employees within the meaning of section
2(9)(i).
CONCLUSION
The company maintains one establishment for its factory. The factory does the work of
transforming and transmitting electrical energy. All the workers in question including the
clerks and the administrative staff are engaged in connection with this work. None of them is
employed in any separate establishment unconnected with the work of the factory. Some of
the employees work outside the factory, but their duties are connected with the work of the
factory. They are therefore employees within the meaning of s.2 (9) (i).

Labour Law Case Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labour Law Case Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labour Law Case Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROJECT

Submission date: 01-Sep-2021 12:34AM (UTC+0530)

NAGPUR ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER VS ESIC AIR 1967 SC 1364

Division: D Prn: 17010223115

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA Symbiosis

Under the guidance of

Mr. Purvish Malkan

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

In the Supreme Court of India: AIR 1967 SC 1364

Petitioner: Nagpur Electric Light and Power

Date of Judgement: 2nd day of March, 1967.

Bench: K.N Wanchoo, R.S Bachawat and V. Bhargava

You might also like