{"id":216002,"date":"2009-08-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009"},"modified":"2018-01-21T08:10:00","modified_gmt":"2018-01-21T02:40:00","slug":"ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S M G Electricals. Plot No. 97 vs Employees State Insurance … on 13 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S M G Electricals. Plot No. 97 vs Employees State Insurance … on 13 August, 2009<\/div>\n
FAO No. 822 of 1986                                                                 1\n\n\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                           CHANDIGARH\n                                        --\n\n                                 FAO No. 822 of 1986\n                                 Date of decision: August 13, 2009\n\n\nM\/s M G Electricals. Plot No. 97, Sector 24, Faridabad         ........ Appellant\n\n             Versus\n\nEmployees State Insurance Corporation, Chandigarh           .......Respondent(s)\n\n\nCoram:       Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur\n                       -.-\n\nPresent:     Mr. Roshan Lal Batta, Senior Advocate with\n             Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate\n             for the appellant\n\n             Mr. Vikas Suri, Senior Standing Counsel\n      `      for ESIC with\n             Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate\n             for the respondent\n                    -.-\n\n      1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be\n             allowed to see the judgement?\n\n      2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not?\n\n      3.     Whether the judgement should be reported in\n             the Digest?\n\nNirmaljit Kaur, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             The appellant, herein, filed petition under Section 75 of the<\/p>\n
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short ‘the 1948 Act’) seeking declaration<\/p>\n
to the effect that the appellant is not covered under the 1948 Act and the recovery<\/p>\n
certificate and the amount of contributions claimed from the appellant, are illegal.<\/p>\n
The aforesaid petition was dismissed vide order dated 05.08.1986 passed by the<\/p>\n
Employees’ Insurance Court, Faridabad.\n<\/p>\n
 FAO No. 822 of 1986                                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the aforesaid order<\/p>\n
dated 05.08.1998, mainly, on two counts.\n<\/p>\n
            Raising his first argument, learned counsel for the appellant stated<\/p>\n
that the Insurance Court had erred in law by disbelieving the documentary<\/p>\n
evidence of the appellant-firm in the shape of attendance register entries Ex. P-5<\/p>\n
to P-18, which shows that the number of employees never exceeded 10 during the<\/p>\n
relevant period. Mohan Gupta, Proprietor of the Firm, who appeared as PW1 has<\/p>\n
clearly stated that the number of employees never exceeded 8 in the factory. The<\/p>\n
trial Court has erred by relying upon the Survey Reports of the respondent-<\/p>\n
Corporation, which cannot be relied upon, as it were prepared in the absence of<\/p>\n
the appellant or any responsible person of the factory. These Survey Reports were<\/p>\n
not signed by any person on behalf of the appellant-firm. Bal Kishan, who is<\/p>\n
alleged to have signed the Survey Reports was not the employee of the factory.<\/p>\n
His name (Bal Kishan) has been wrongly mentioned. PW1 has stated, in his<\/p>\n
evidence, that no over time register has been maintained in the factory by the<\/p>\n
appellant firm. RW 2 has wrongly stated about the maintenance of overtime<\/p>\n
register. The report given by RW2 dated 11.06.1975 is absolutely wrong. The<\/p>\n
survey report given by RW1 cannot be relied upon as the Inspector did not<\/p>\n
mention the names of the workers working in the factory of the appellant and no<\/p>\n
signatures were obtained from any representative of the employer on the survey<\/p>\n
report. This has been admitted by RW1. RW 2 has also admitted in the cross<\/p>\n
examination that he did not count the workers and the letter pad was given by a<\/p>\n
fictitious person Bal Kishan.\n<\/p>\n
            In response, learned counsel for the respondents invited the court’s<\/p>\n
attention to the Survey Reports Ex. R1 and R3. Both the Survey Reports are duly
\n FAO No. 822 of 1986                                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
stamped as a token of proof that these were prepared in the presence of the<\/p>\n
employees of the factory. These Survey Reports have been made on the letter pad<\/p>\n
of the appellant firm. The inspection of the premisses carried out by the Inspector<\/p>\n
is admitted in the statement of Shri Mohan Lal Gupta, RW1. There is no mala fide<\/p>\n
alleged against the officials of the Corporation, submitting the Survey Reports.<\/p>\n
Thus, the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the name of<\/p>\n
the employee, who signed the Survey Reports, is not mentioned, is not relevant.<\/p>\n
Fact remains that they are duly stamped and are also prepared on the writing pad<\/p>\n
of the Firm. Therefore, the authenticity of the Survey Reports cannot be doubted<\/p>\n
only on the ground that neither the owner of the firm, nor his representative was<\/p>\n
present in the factory at the time of inspection.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the appellant, thereafter, relied on the<\/p>\n
examination-in-chief and cross examination of Shri Om Parkash Sharma, RW1<\/p>\n
and Shri D R Dhall, RW2, who were the witnesses of the respondent-Corporation,<\/p>\n
to show that the same are contradictory and that there were discrepancies in their<\/p>\n
statements. The discrepancies so pointed out by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant are minor in nature as the statements having been recorded after a lapse<\/p>\n
of 10 years, can always vary. The fact remains that the documentary evidence in<\/p>\n
the form of Survey Report lie. The clinching documentary evidence in the face of<\/p>\n
the oral evidence will have to be relied upon. Learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
further argued that in order to prove that the 1948 Act was applicable, it was<\/p>\n
necessary to prove that the machines were being run by power. The plea that no<\/p>\n
electric power was being used in the factory, was taken up by the appellants.<\/p>\n
Thus, it was for the appellant to prove that no electric power was being used, but<\/p>\n
the appellant did not lead any evidence to the effect that the machines were not
\n FAO No. 822 of 1986                                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
being run on power.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the appellant while raising the second argument<\/p>\n
submitted that the Employees’ Insurance Court has illegally held that the petition<\/p>\n
under Section 75 of the 1948 Act is time barred, inasmuch as, the order, under<\/p>\n
challenge, vide which the Regional Director had finally determined the<\/p>\n
contributions, to be paid by the appellant firm, is dated 21.03.1983. It was further<\/p>\n
submitted that since the order dated 21.03.1983 was challenged under Section 75<\/p>\n
of the 1948 Act on 01.09.1983 and then the same is clearly within time as<\/p>\n
prescribed under section 77 of the 1948 Act. It was further stated that no other<\/p>\n
order was received before the aforesaid order dated 21.03.1983.<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, however, invited the<\/p>\n
Courts’ attention to the prayer clause made in the plaint i.e. para 15, which runs as<\/p>\n
follow:-\n<\/p>\n
             “15. It is, therefore, prayed that the recovery demanded by<\/p>\n
             the respondent towards E.S.I. Contributions vide their Ref.<\/p>\n
             No. PB 13\/14561\/67\/SF(4) 1033 dated 19.04.1976, for<\/p>\n
             recovery of Rs.1535.50 paise plus interest @6% per annum<\/p>\n
             and RC No. 1055 dated 06.08.1976 and Reference No.<\/p>\n
             PB\/13\/14561\/67\/SF (221)1795 dated 31.08.1977 for the<\/p>\n
             recovery of Rs.1394.85 plus interest @6% per annum R.C.<\/p>\n
             No. 652 dated 07.04.1977 and Ref No. PB\/12\/14561\/609<\/p>\n
             dated 30.06.83 for Rs.1054.25 paise and any other amount of<\/p>\n
             recovery, so made by the respondent be declared illegal and<\/p>\n
             the orders so made by the respondent be struck down and<\/p>\n
             declared null and void and the respondent be restrained from
\n FAO No. 822 of 1986                                                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
              recovering the same perpetually.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              It is obvious from the reading of the aforesaid para of the plaint that<\/p>\n
the order for recovery was issued for the first time on 19.04.1976 and then on<\/p>\n
06.08.1976, 31.08.1977 and 07.04.1977 and finally on 30.06.1983.             As such,<\/p>\n
cause of action had arisen from the date of issuance of the first recovery order i.e.<\/p>\n
On 19.04.1976. Therefore, petition under Section 75 of the 1948 Act is clearly<\/p>\n
time barred, as Section 77(1)(a) of the 1948 Act, allows a period of three years<\/p>\n
from the date of cause of action, whereas the petition under Section 75 of the 1948<\/p>\n
Act was moved as late as on 01.09.1983, i.e. almost after seven years.<\/p>\n
              Learned counsel for the appellant, however, denied the receiving of<\/p>\n
the aforesaid orders and referred to para 9 of the plaint, wherein, the appellant had<\/p>\n
taken a stand that they had received the demand notice for the first time on<\/p>\n
14.10.1980.\n<\/p>\n
              After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having<\/p>\n
perused the entire record, it is difficult to accept that the appellant heard about the<\/p>\n
demand notice for the first time only on 14.10.1980, inasmuch as, all the orders<\/p>\n
dated 19.04.1976, 06.08.1976, 31.08.1977, 07.04.1977 and 30.06.1983 have been<\/p>\n
challenged by the appellant in the plaint. All these orders must have been received<\/p>\n
by the appellants on the respective dates, as its details have been mentioned in the<\/p>\n
prayer clause of the plaint. A specific reply has also been given by respondent in<\/p>\n
para 9 of their written statement, which reads as follow:-<\/p>\n
              “9.   That contents of para 9 of the petition are admitted to the<\/p>\n
              extent that the petitioner was informed that it was covered under<\/p>\n
              the ESI Act with effect from March, 1975, but rest of the<\/p>\n
              contents of this para of the petition are wrong and false and
\n FAO No. 822 of 1986                                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
            hence denied. Instead, it is submitted that the petitioner was<\/p>\n
            informed regarding his coverage under ESIC in the year 1975.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            A plea that the appellant had received demand notice, for the first<\/p>\n
time, only on 14.10.1980, has not been proved by leading any cogent evidence in<\/p>\n
this regard. Even the official witnesses have not been cross examined to that<\/p>\n
effect. Nor, the orders dated 19.04.1976, 06.08.1976, 31.08.1977, 07.04.1977,<\/p>\n
which were duly exhibited, had been objected to. It is apparent that these orders<\/p>\n
of the year 1976 and 1977 were in the knowledge of the appellant. As such, the<\/p>\n
petition under section 75 of the 1948 Act, is hopelessly time barred.<\/p>\n
            In view of the position delineated above, I find no merit in this appeal<\/p>\n
and the same is accordingly, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 (Nirmaljit Kaur)
\n                                                                     Judge
\nAugust 13, 2009
\nmohan
\n                   Whether to be referred to the Reporter: Yes or No\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court M\/S M G Electricals. Plot No. 97 vs Employees State Insurance … on 13 August, 2009 FAO No. 822 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH — FAO No. 822 of 1986 Date of decision: August 13, 2009 M\/s M G Electricals. Plot No. 97, Sector […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-216002","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S M G Electricals. Plot No. 97 vs Employees State Insurance ... on 13 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S M G Electricals. Plot No. 97 vs Employees State Insurance ... on 13 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-21T02:40:00+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\/S M G Electricals. Plot No. 97 vs Employees State Insurance … on 13 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-21T02:40:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1401,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009\",\"name\":\"M\/S M G Electricals. Plot No. 97 vs Employees State Insurance ... on 13 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-21T02:40:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\/S M G Electricals. Plot No. 97 vs Employees State Insurance … on 13 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"M\/S M G Electricals. Plot No. 97 vs Employees State Insurance ... on 13 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S M G Electricals. Plot No. 97 vs Employees State Insurance ... on 13 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-21T02:40:00+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S M G Electricals. Plot No. 97 vs Employees State Insurance … on 13 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-21T02:40:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009"},"wordCount":1401,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009","name":"M\/S M G Electricals. Plot No. 97 vs Employees State Insurance ... on 13 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-21T02:40:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-g-electricals-plot-no-97-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-13-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S M G Electricals. Plot No. 97 vs Employees State Insurance … on 13 August, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/216002","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=216002"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216002\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216002"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216002"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216002"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}