2009 (9) TMI 1052

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s been declared that the respondent No. 1 Board is not liable to make any contribution towards the Employees State Insurance in respect of the impugned demand. 3. The facts in detail have been given in the impugned judgment and hence we need not repeat the same herein. 4. It appears that the appellant had issued a notice under Section 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter for short 'the Act') for making employer's contribution towards the employees state insurance. The respondent No. 1 Board challenged that notice before the Employees State Insurance Court, Delhi. It appears that neither the workers concerned of the respondent No. 1 Board nor any one of them in representative capacity were made partie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uld have impleaded atleast some of the persons concerned, as respondents.  7. The case of the appellant was that, in fact, none of the concerned persons was its employee and it was difficult to identify them.  8. In this connection we may refer to Section 75(1)(a) of the Act which states that if any question or dispute arises as to whether any person is an employee of the employer concerned, or whether the employer is liable to pay the employer's contribution towards the said persons' insurance, that is a matter that has to be decided by the Employees Insurance Court. Hence, in our opinion, the concerned person has to be heard before a determination is made against him that he is not an employee of the em....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t be remembered that the Act has been enacted for the benefit of the workers to give them medical benefits, which have been mentioned in Section 46 of the Act. Hence the principal beneficiary of the Act is the workmen and not the ESI Corporation. The ESI Corporation is only the agency to implement and carry out the object of the Act and it has nothing to lose if the decision of the Employees Insurance Court is given in favour of the employer. It is only the workmen who have to lose if a decision is given in favour of the employer. Hence, the workmen (or at least some of them in a representative capacity, or their trade union) have to be necessarily made a party/parties because the Act is a labour legislation made for the benefit of the work....