{"id":1978,"date":"2011-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011"},"modified":"2018-11-15T16:12:30","modified_gmt":"2018-11-15T10:42:30","slug":"the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"The Management Of Kumar Medical &#8230; vs Employees State Insurance &#8230; on 25 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Management Of Kumar Medical &#8230; vs Employees State Insurance &#8230; on 25 August, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 25\/08\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA\n\nW.P.(MD)No.11463 of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008\n\nThe Management of Kumar Medical Centre,\n(Wholesale Pharmaceutical Distributors)\n51 East of Tower,\nNagercoil 629 001.\nRep. by its Proprietor Mr.P.Kumaraswamy ... Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\nEmployees State Insurance Corporation,\n(Sub Regional Office, (Tirunelveli)\nMunicipal Shooping Complex,\nSalai Street,\nSindupponthurai,\nTirunelveli 627 001.\nRep. by its Assistant Director.         ... Respondents\n\nPRAYER\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia praying to issue a Writ of  Certiorari, to call for the records of the\nrespondent in Proceedings No\/6630706\/INS\/SRO\/TLI and quash its order, dated\n13.10.2008.\n\n!For Petitioner\t ... Mrs.T.Malini\n^For Respondent  ...  Mr.P.Sermakani\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner has approached this court, with a prayer for issuance of a<br \/>\nwrit, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the notice, covering the petitioner<br \/>\nunder ESI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The impugned notice reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n<pre>Web site:www.esiindia.org              Phone:0462-2332106\n         www.esic.nic.in                     0462-2332105\n\nE-mail: esicsrothi@dateone.in          Fax:  046202332107\n\nSUB-REGIONAL OFFICE (TIRUNELVELI)\nEMPLOYEES' STATE INSURNCE CORPORATION\nMINICIPAL SHOOPING COMPLEX\nSALAI STREET, SINDUPPONTHURAI\nTIRUNELVELI-627 001.\n\nNo\/66\/30706\/34\/INS\/SRO\/TLI            Date: 13\/10\/08\n\nTo,\n\nM\/s.Kumar Medical Centre,\n    51, East of Tower,\n    Nagercoil-629 001.\n\nSir,\n\n\tSub: Coverage of the Unit under ESI Act 1948-Reg.\n\tRef: Your letter, dated 1\/9\/2008.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tWith reference to your letter cited, above it is informed that preserving<br \/>\nmedicines under refrigeration amounts to manufacturing process with the aid of<br \/>\npower under section 2(k) of the Factories Act.  Therefore, the unit is coverable<br \/>\nunder section 2(12) read with section 2(14AA) of the EST Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is hereby confirmed that your unit is coverable under the EST Act as<br \/>\nstated in this office letter, dated 6\/6\/08.  Immediate compliance is requested.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\tYours faithfully,<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsd\/-xxxx<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tASSITANT DIRECTOR<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(INSURANCE BRANCH)<\/p>\n<p>\t3.The petitioner is a practicing Doctor, who is practicing in medicine.<br \/>\nThe petitioner in addition to practice also started business of wholesale<br \/>\ndistributorship, for the products of various pharmaceutical companies, like<br \/>\nGlaxo India Limited, Cipla Limited, Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ranbaxy<br \/>\nLaboratories Limited, Zudus Cadila Limited,Lupin Pharmaceuticals Limited,Abbot<br \/>\nLabs Limited, Anglo French Limited, Workhardt Limited, Eli Lilly &amp; Company (I)<br \/>\nPvt., Limited, etc. The petitioner is a licensed stockist, under the Drugs &amp;<br \/>\nCosmetics Act, 1940.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.The petitioner stores the medicines in refrigerators and two coolers,<br \/>\nand has employed 16 employees, including three pharmacists. The shop of the<br \/>\npetitioner is established under the Tamil Nadu Shops &amp; Commercial Establishments<br \/>\nAct.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The petitioner is not covered under the Employees&#8217; Provident Fund &amp;<br \/>\nMiscellaneous Act, as employees working with him are less than 20.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.The impugned order has been passed, by invoking section 2(12) of the ESI<br \/>\nAct, which defines the &#8216;Factory&#8217; to mean as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;(a)wherein ten or more persons are employed or were employed for wages on<br \/>\nany day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing<br \/>\nprocess is being carried on with the aid of power or it ordinarily so carried on<br \/>\nor\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b)whereon twenty or more persons are employers or were employed for wages<br \/>\non any date of the preceding twelve months and in any part of which a<br \/>\nmanufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power or is<br \/>\nordinarily carried on.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe term &#8220;manufacturing process&#8221; shall have the same meaning as assigned<br \/>\nto it in the Factories Act, 1948, Section 2(k)of the Factories Act, defines the<br \/>\nterms &#8220;manufacturing process&#8221; to mean that;-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i)making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, packing, oiling,<br \/>\nwashing, cleaning, breaking up, demolishing or otherwise treating or adopting<br \/>\nany article or substance with a view to its use, sale transport, delivery or<br \/>\ndisposal; or<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii)pumping oil, water sewage or any other substances; or\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii)generating, transforming or transmitting power; or<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv)composing types for printing, printing by letter press, lithography,<br \/>\nphotogravure or other similar process or book binding; or\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(v)constructing, reconstructing, repairing, refitting, finishing or<br \/>\nbreaking up ships or vessels; or\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(vi)preserving or storing any article in cold storage.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.The pleaded case of the petitioner is that though number of employees<br \/>\nworking with the petitioner are less than 20, the Inspector of ESI, visited the<br \/>\npremises of the petitioner and reported, that as the refrigerators and coolers<br \/>\nare used for storing some of the medicines, it amount to manufacturing process,<br \/>\ntherefore, the premises are covered under ESI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order, on<br \/>\nthe ground that there is no manufacturing process, carried out by the<br \/>\npetitioner, therefore, premises of petitioner do not come under definition of<br \/>\n&#8216;factory&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.The refrigerators and coolers are only used to store the medicines for<br \/>\ndistribution\/sell, under a license.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order<br \/>\non the face of it is outcome of non-application of mind, and perverse, thus, hit<br \/>\nby Article 14 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has<br \/>\nchallenged the maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground that the writ<br \/>\nis premature, as notice has only been issued. It will be open to the petitioner,<br \/>\nto take all the defenses available in reply.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent<br \/>\nthat the use of refrigerators and coolers, in the premises of the petitioner<br \/>\namounts to manufacturing process, in view of the law laid down by the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nDivision Bench of this court, in the case of The Kumbakonam Milk Supply<br \/>\nCooperative Society, represented by its <a href=\"\/doc\/17235\/\">Secretary vs. The Regional Director,<br \/>\nEmployees&#8217; State Insurance Corporation, Madras<\/a> [(2003)2 MLJ 349], wherein this<br \/>\ncourt has pleased to lay down as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Sec.2(14AA) of the Act &#8216;manufacturing process&#8217; shall have the meaning<br \/>\nassigned to it in the Factories Act, 1948.  Sec.2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948<br \/>\ndefines the expression &#8220;manufacturing process&#8221; and we have already referred to<br \/>\nthe insertion of Clause (vi) of Sec.2(k) by Act 94 of 1976 which makes it clear<br \/>\nthat preserving or storing any article in cold storage is deemed to be a<br \/>\nmanufacturing process.  Though it is stated that only two persons are being<br \/>\nengaged in cold storage and others are messengers and their main work is to<br \/>\nprocure milk from its members, in the light of the definition of the words<br \/>\n&#8220;employees&#8221;, &#8220;factor&#8221; and &#8220;manufacturing process&#8221;, as referred to in the<br \/>\nEmployees State Insurance Act, and the Factories Act and in the light of the<br \/>\ndetails furnished in the documents produced by the society, that the appellant<br \/>\nsociety is an establishment which comes within the ambit of Employees&#8217; State<br \/>\nInsurance Act and that the learned District Judge was perfectly right in<br \/>\narriving at a conclusion, confirming the action initiated by the Employees&#8217;<br \/>\nState Insurance Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Employees&#8217; State Insurance Act is a piece of social welfare<br \/>\nlegislation enacted primarily with the object of providing certain benefits to<br \/>\nemployees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and also to make<br \/>\nprovisions for certain other matters incidental thereto.  In an enactment of<br \/>\nthis nature, the endeavour of the Court should be to interpret the provisions<br \/>\nliberally in favour of the persons for whose benefit the enactment has been<br \/>\nmade.  In the light of the statutory provisions of the Employees&#8217; State<br \/>\nInsurance Act, 1948 and the Factories Act, 1948, complied with the factual<br \/>\ndetails available in the case on hand, the Court do not want to take a different<br \/>\nview than that taken by the District Judge, and hence the Court in agreement<br \/>\nwith the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Judge.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.The stand of the respondent is totally misconceived.  The order<br \/>\nimpugned is not merely a notice, but an order confirming that the shop of the<br \/>\npetitioner is covered under the ESI Act, as in the letter, dated 6th June 2008,<br \/>\ndirections have been issued to take steps under the ESI Act. The writ petition,<br \/>\ntherefore, cannot be said to be premature.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that<br \/>\nkeeping of the refrigerator and cooler would amount to manufacturing process, is<br \/>\nagain misconceived.  The refrigerators or coolers are not used by the petitioner<br \/>\nfor carrying out any manufacturing process, but for storage for sale, in view of<br \/>\nthe nature of particular medicine, for the benefit of the customer. The<br \/>\njudgments relied upon is regarding preserving the article in cold storage, which<br \/>\ncannot be equated to the ordinary refrigerator.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.If the contention of the respondent is accepted, then every household<br \/>\nwould become a manufacturing process, as the refrigerators are keeping for<br \/>\nstorage of household goods for use. The judgment relied upon by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the respondent, can have no application to use of refrigerator or<br \/>\ncooler for the purposes of storage of medicine, nor it can be termed as a<br \/>\nmanufacturing process.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16.The learned counsel for the respondent challenged the maintainability<br \/>\nof the writ, on account of alternative remedy under section 75 of the ESI Act,<br \/>\nby placing reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this court, in the case of<br \/>\nthe <a href=\"\/doc\/70903\/\">Tuticorin Thermal Power Station Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd.,<br \/>\nTuticorin vs. The Deputy Regional Director<\/a> etc., &amp; others [2005 Writ L.R.332].\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17.There can be no dispute with the proposition laid down by the Hon&#8217;be<br \/>\nDivision Bench judgment of this court that alternative remedy is a ground to<br \/>\nnon-suit the petitioner. It is always equally well settled that alternative<br \/>\nremedy is not a complete bar, specially when writ petition, is admitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18.The writ petition was admitted in the year 2008, therefore, at this<br \/>\nstage, it would not be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to alternative<br \/>\nremedy, under section 75 of the ESI Act, to challenge, the order which on the<br \/>\nface of it is perverse, and also without jurisdiction, as the premises of the<br \/>\npetitioner on admitted facts can not be covered under ESI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19.It is an imagination of the respondent that storing of medicine in the<br \/>\nrefrigerator will amounts to manufacturing process, by equating ordinary<br \/>\nrefrigerator with cold storage, which in itself is an industry.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20.The impugned order on the face of it is perverse, arbitrary and outcome<br \/>\nof colourable exercise of power, thus, hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of<br \/>\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t21.While rejecting the plea of the respondent, that the writ petition<br \/>\ndeserves to be dismissed, for alternative remedy, it is appropriate to notice<br \/>\nthat in-spite of the Hon&#8217;ble Division Bench judgment of this court, in the case<br \/>\nof the Tuticorin thermal <a href=\"\/doc\/614932\/\">Power Station Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., vs.<br \/>\nThe Deputy Regional Director<\/a> etc., [2005 Writ L.R.332], writ petitions are<br \/>\nfiled, in this court, by not disclosing the statutory remedies available to the<br \/>\npetitioner and all the writ petitions are entertained and admitted by ignoring<br \/>\nthe availability of alternative statutory remedy. The objection to<br \/>\nmaintainability is only taken at final hearing, that is after number of years.<br \/>\nThe office should make a note about availability of alternative statutory<br \/>\nremedy, so that question of maintainability of writ can be decided at the time<br \/>\nof admission of writ.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t22.As already observed, the impugned order on the face of it, is arbitrary<br \/>\nand outcome of non-application of mind and thus, hit by Article 14 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t23.The writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t24.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.  But with no<br \/>\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>er<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Management Of Kumar Medical &#8230; vs Employees State Insurance &#8230; on 25 August, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25\/08\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.(MD)No.11463 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 The Management of Kumar Medical Centre, (Wholesale Pharmaceutical Distributors) 51 East of Tower, Nagercoil [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1978","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Management Of Kumar Medical ... vs Employees State Insurance ... on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Management Of Kumar Medical ... vs Employees State Insurance ... on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-15T10:42:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Management Of Kumar Medical &#8230; vs Employees State Insurance &#8230; on 25 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-15T10:42:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1711,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011\",\"name\":\"The Management Of Kumar Medical ... vs Employees State Insurance ... on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-15T10:42:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Management Of Kumar Medical &#8230; vs Employees State Insurance &#8230; on 25 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Management Of Kumar Medical ... vs Employees State Insurance ... on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Management Of Kumar Medical ... vs Employees State Insurance ... on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-15T10:42:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Management Of Kumar Medical &#8230; vs Employees State Insurance &#8230; on 25 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-15T10:42:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011"},"wordCount":1711,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011","name":"The Management Of Kumar Medical ... vs Employees State Insurance ... on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-15T10:42:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-kumar-medical-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-25-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Management Of Kumar Medical &#8230; vs Employees State Insurance &#8230; on 25 August, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1978","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1978"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1978\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1978"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1978"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1978"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}