ESI coverage of toddy shops confirmed where regulatory state control was insufficient for Government-establishment exemption.

Toddy shops were treated as "shops" for coverage under the notification extending the Employees' State Insurance Act, because they were premises where buying and selling business was carried on. The Government-establishment proviso did not exclude them, since exclusion requires both that the establishment belong to or be under Government control and that employees receive benefits substantially similar or superior to those under the Act. A merely regulatory role by the State, without financial, administrative, or functional control, was insufficient. On that basis, the Act applied to the toddy shops and the challenge to contribution liability failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether toddy shops run by the appellants were establishments covered by the notification issued under Section 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. (ii) Whether the proviso to Section 1(4) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 excluded the toddy shops from the Act on the ground that they belonged to or were under the control of the Government and their employees received benefits substantially similar or superior to those under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether toddy shops run by the appellants were establishments covered by the notification issued under Section 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.

Analysis: The notification extending the Act to establishments included shops, and a toddy shop was treated as a premises where buying and selling business was carried on. On that basis, toddy shops fell within the entry of 'shop' in the schedule. The appellants could not successfully distinguish toddy shops from other commercial establishments for the purpose of coverage under the notification.

Conclusion: The toddy shops were covered by the notification and fell within the extended application of the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the proviso to Section 1(4) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 excluded the toddy shops from the Act on the ground that they belonged to or were under the control of the Government and their employees received benefits substantially similar or superior to those under the Act.

Analysis: The proviso applies only if both conditions are satisfied: the establishment must belong to or be under the control of the Government, and the employees must receive benefits substantially similar or superior to those under the Act. The toddy shops were run by licensees under annual auctions, and the State's role was only regulatory. There was no governmental participation in finance, administration, or functional control sufficient to treat the shops as Government establishments. Since the first condition itself failed, the second did not arise for decision.

Conclusion: The proviso to Section 1(4) did not exclude the toddy shops, and the appellants were not entitled to exemption on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The Act was applicable to the toddy shops for the relevant period, and the challenge to the demand for contribution failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For exclusion under the Government-establishment proviso, the establishment must be shown to belong to or be under the control of the Government, and a merely regulatory governmental role is insufficient to defeat coverage under the Act.

---