IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Ins APP No. 40 of 2005()
1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. G.G.HOSPITAL, MURINJAPALAM,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :20/02/2007
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------
INS.APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2005
------------------------------------------
Dated 20th February 2007
J U D G M E N T
E.S.I Corporation, the respondent in
I.C.31/01, is challenging the order passed by Employees’
Insurance Court, Kollam upholding the contentions raised
by respondent that the canteen run by respondent
hospital is not covered under Section 2(12) of Employees
State Insurance Act and hence respondent is not liable to
comply with the provisions of the Act.
2. Learned counsel appearing for appellant was
heard.
3. Hospital of respondent is at Thiruvananthapuram. 160 employees were working in the
hospital apart from 60 doctors. Hospital is running a
canteen within the same premises to provide boarding
facilities to the staff, inpatients and employees of
hospital. According to respondent it is part and parcel
of the hospital and is not a separate unit and canteen
does not employ more than ten employees and therefore
2
does not attract coverage provided under Section 2 (12)
of Employees State Insurance Act. Appellant opposed the
application contending that wage register produced to
Insurance Inspector shows that ten employees have been
employed for wages. Insurance Inspector inspected
canteen in July 2001 and reported that electrically
operated devices like Grinder and Fridge are installed
in the canteen. It was contended that canteen is
qualified for coverage as a factory under Section 2 (12)
of the Act.
4. Insurance Court on evaluating the materials
placed before it, including Ext.B1 report filed by RW1
found that evidence of RW1 establish that she did not
make head count of employees of the canteen and workers
of the canteen are last grade workers of the hospital
and wages are also paid from the hospital and there are
no separate account maintained by the canteen. It was
also found that though Fridge and Grinder are installed
in the canteen, electric supply was from the hospital
and canteen was not run as separate unit. In such
circumstances, Insurance court held that canteen does
not attract coverage as provided under Section 2 (12) of
the Act.
5. Argument of learned counsel appearing for
3
appellant relying on the decisions of Apex court in RITZ
Private Limited & others v. Shivaraman & another (1993
(4) SCC 364) and Christian Medical College v. Employees’
State Insurance Corporation (2001 (1) SCC 256) are that
though canteen is part of hospital, it is being
separately maintained as a unit and satisfies the
definition of factory as provided under Section 2 (12) of
Factories Act and therefore the impugned order is
unsustainable. Facts of the cases relied on by learned
counsel are entirely different. In both the cases, on
the evidence it was found that more than ten persons
were employed in that unit which were separately
functioning. The decisions are not applicable to the
facts of this case.
6. Insurance court on the evidence found that
canteen was not run as separate unit but was being run
as part of hospital. It was also found that employees of
canteen are last grade employees of hospital and RW1 who
submitted Ext.B1 report did not make head count of
employees of canteen and therefore on the basis of the
report it cannot be said that canteen is run as separate
unit. More over the Employees Insurance Court found that
the canteen does not employ ten or more employees. In
4
such circumstances. Canteen does not attract coverage
under Section 2(12) of Employees State Insurance Act.
No substantial question of law is involved in the
appeal.
Appeal is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.