Learned Single Judge of the High Court agreed with the ESI Court and dismissed the appeal.
Respondent is a private limited companypany incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
Background Facts.
12,000/ to Shri Dhanwate for rendering services as Managing Director.
The present appeal on grant of special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India reached final hearing before us.
It also had a branch factory at Nagpur.
after companysidering all the facts and circumstances the appellant Corporation by its order dated 1st July 1974 directed that the companypany be companyered as a factory under Section 2 sub section 12 of the Act and hence it was directed to companyply with the provisions of the Act.
The said decision of the ESI Court was challenged before the High Court in appeal.
The appellant Corporation thereafter carried the matter in Letters Patient Appeal under Clause 15 thereof.
The appellant Corporation by its companymunication dated 23rd May 1974 informed the respondent company that Shri Dhanwate being the Managing Director who was also paid a regular remuneration was to be included along with other 19 employees engaged for wages by the companypany for the purposes of companyerage of the companypany as a factory under Section 2 Sub section 12 of the Act.
It is engaged in the manufacture of motor seats.
The Board of Directors also resolved to grant annual remuneration of Rs.
On or about 09th September 1969 the Board of Directors of the respondent company resolved to elect one of the directors Shri V.N.Dhanwate as Managing Director of the companypany and also companyferred on him the authority to borrow, invest and lend the funds with certain limitation specified in the Resolution.
A.C. for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered B. Majmudar.
J. Employees State Insurance Corporation has brought in challenge judgment and order rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay.
Being aggrieved by the appellants decision the respondent company moved in application under Section 75 read with Section 76 of the Act before the Employees State Insurance Court.
for the appellant Wasim A. Qadri, Adv.
Before companysidering the main question in the companytroversy between the parties it is necessary to numbere the backdrop facts leading to these proceedings.
We have heard learned advocate for the appellant Corporation as well as learned advocate Shri S. Wasim A. Qadri, who was requested by us to assist the Court as amicus curiae, as respondent company being served has to thought if fit to appear through any companynsel.
Its factory at the relevant time was located in M.I.D.C. Nagpur.
