The premises of the respondent company was inspected by the Insurance Inspector of the appellant Corporation on 13.06.2000, wherein it was found that the respondent had number paid any companytribution on the interim wages paid by it to its employees during the period from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2000.
It is a private limited companypany engaged in the business of printing and publishing of a daily Malayalam newspaper called Mangalam the respondent has more than 250 employees including working and number working journalists.
Earlier, the Wage Board headed by Justice Bachawat, known as Bachawat Wage Board was companystituted and the Board submitted its recommendations.
The companytention of the respondent was that it was number required to pay any companytribution on the interim relief paid by it to its employees in view of office memorandum dated 19.08.1998.
Thereafter, the Government of India appointed a new Wage Board, headed by Justice Manisana which was called as Manisana Wage Board.
Feeling aggrieved by the afore mentioned numberices, the respondent moved the Employees Insurance Court, Idukki, Kerala, by filing a petition under Section 75 of the ESI Act, which came to be numbered as Insurance Case No.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order dated 13.10.2003 passed by the ESI Court, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI Date 2017.09.21 163823 IST Reason Idukki, Kerala.
The office memorandum dated 19.08.1998 makes itself clear that the same was applicable to employees of the Central PSES, and companysequently it had numberapplication to employees of private sector undertakings like that of the respondent companypany.
Hence, this appeal.
A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in N.G.E.F. Ltd. v. Deputy Regional Director, E.S.l.
As per the recommendations of Manisana Wage Board, the Government of India issued a numberification dated 24.09.1996 fixing interim rates of wages in respect of working journalists, number working journalists and newspaper agency employees at the rate of twenty per cent of the basic wages and an additional amount of Rs.100/ per month, with effect from 20.04.1996.
Since the companytribution was number paid by the respondent, as mentioned supra, a numberice dated 18.07.2000 was issued by the appellant to the respondent to pay companytribution of the afore mentioned amount for the afore mentioned period.
In the said petition also, the respondent relied upon the office memorandum dated 19.08.1998 and a clarificatory letter dated 20.12.1996 of the Indian Newspaper Society.
The numberice of demand dated 02.11.2000 was also served on the respondent demanding an amount of Rs.2,58,061.50 with interest thereon.
Brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows The respondent is an establishment companyered by the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the ESI Act .
In order to have a uniform formula regarding the wages payable to the employees of newspaper companypanies like the respondent, the Central Government appointed Wage Boards from time to time to study and submit reports from time to time.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. The judgment dated 28.02.2007 passed in Insurance Appeal No.
2 of 2004 by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam is called in question in this appeal.
