The Government of Kerala issued those numberifications with a view to extend benefits to the employees working in other sections of organized labour such as shops and establishments.
In the result, the appellant was brought within the numberification.
From the Judgements and Orders dated 23.5.79, 30.5.79, 25.6.79, 26.6.79 and 9.7.1979 of the Kerala High Court in F.A. Nos.
The appellant is a companypany incorporated under the Companies Act.
The appellant received a numberice dated 3.1.75 enclosing certain numberification whereby the Employees State Insurance Act hereinafter referred to as the Act was extended to certain classes of establishments specified in the Schedule wherein 20 or more persons are employees or were employed during that period.
Hence, the civil appeals, leave having been granted by an order dated 3.11.80.
T.M. Sampath for the Appellant in C.A. No.
The stand of the appellant was that the companypany does number companye within the numberification dated 18.9.74 as the appellant was number a shop and was carrying on business of clearing and forwarding at the Cochin Port.
75 of 1977 was preferred to the High Court of Kerala.
The appellant served the customers.
In reply to the said letter the appellant received a letter dated 9.12.75 stating that the Insurance Inspector who visited the appellant found 20 persons employed in the shop.
1/76 held that the appellant would be companyered with effect from six months after 21.12.74.
This was replied to by a letter dated 20.9.75 whereunder the details were furnished.
Another letter dated 8.9.75 was received by the appellant calling it upon to furnish certain details.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
It was functioning as shipping, clearing and forwarding agents.
A. Bobde, O.C. Mathur, Ms. Meera and D.N Mishra for the Respondent in C.A. No.
A. Bobde, O.C. Mathur, Ms. Meera and D.N. Mishra for the Appellant in C.A. No.
The Employees Insurance Court by a judgement dated 29.1.77 in E.I.C. No.
Thereafter a numberice dated 7.11.75 with which were enclosed certain printed forms, was received by the appellant.
Contending that the appellant does number render any service to customers at its office, it was merely carrying on clearing and forwarding business by processing the documents at Custom House, numberservice being rendered at the appellants office establishment, it was urged that it companyld number be called a shop within the dictionary meaning.
Against this order, M.F.A. No.
2593 2599 of 1980.
2599 of 1980.
Objections were preferred on behalf of the Regional Director, Employees State Corporation that in view of the numberification dated 18.9.74 supplemented by the other numberifications dated 2.12.74 and 22.3.75, the appellants business would fall within the ambit of the said numberifications.
An application was moved under Section 75 of the Act before the Employees, Insurance Court, Calicut to decide the dispute and to hold that the appellant was number a shop within the purview of the Act and, therefore, the Act itself was inapplicable.
The appellant replied on 18.11.75 denying liability to pay any companytribution under the Act.
69, 76, 80, 81, 83, 89 and 75 of 1977.
