TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Race club liable for Employees State Insurance Act contributions from 1987. Legal status clarified.</h1> <h3>EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Versus HYDERABAD RACE CLUB</h3> The Supreme Court held that the race club falls within the definition of 'establishment' under the Employees State Insurance Act. The Court rejected the ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of the term 'establishment' under the Employees State Insurance Act.2. Liability of an establishment for contribution under the Act for a specific period.Analysis:1. The first issue revolves around determining whether the appellant, a race club, falls within the definition of 'establishment' under the Employees State Insurance Act. The club argued that it was not covered by the Act, citing the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishment Act. However, the Supreme Court, after considering relevant judgments, including the Cochin Shipping Company case and Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. R.K. Swamy, concluded that the club indeed falls within the purview of the Act. The Court rejected the club's contention and upheld the High Court's finding in this regard. The Court also dismissed the club's argument that authorities did not factually examine its liability, as no evidence was produced to challenge the inspector's report, which supported the club's classification as an establishment.2. The second issue pertains to the liability of the establishment for contribution under the Act for a specific period. The Employees State Insurance Corporation contended that the club should be liable for contributions dating back to 1975 when it was brought under the Act. However, the Court acknowledged that the law regarding clubs being classified as establishments was unclear until a later judgment. The Court noted that the Corporation itself did not take action against the club for non-compliance for nearly 15 years, indicating uncertainty. Therefore, the Court agreed with the High Court's decision to limit the club's liability to contributions from 1987 onwards, considering the circumstances and the lack of clarity in the law during the relevant period.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, affirming that the club falls within the definition of 'establishment' under the Employees State Insurance Act and limiting the club's liability for contributions to the period starting from 1987.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
