Assignment-3

Subject:- Employee Relations (BAC-790)

Sem:- MBA-4F Batch:- (2018-2020)

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Dr. Santosh Singh Mohd Irfan Malik

UID: 18MBA1633
Case: Employee State Insurance Corporation Vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board

Background

Bhakra Beas Management Board is engaged in the regulation of the supply of water and power
from Bhakra Nangal Project and Beas Projects to the states of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan,
Himachal Pradesh, Delhi and Chandigarh. The Bhakra Beas Management Board regulates
operates and manages Bhakra Dam ,Dehar Hydroelectric Project, Pong Dam, Kotla power
stations. In each of the States and Union Territories, the Board has set up the sub-stations for the
purpose of supplying electricity. The generating Board in Bhakra is not covered under the
Employees State Insurance Act. The Board appealed to be covered under the provision of
Employee State Insurance Act as they claimed that they were factories carrying on
manufacturing process there from. The Employee State Insurance court took the decision in the
favor of appellant that the Board must be covered under the provision of Employee State
Insurance Act. The corporation filed against the judgment of the order of Court of Delhi under
Section 75 of the Employee State Insurance Act as they claimed that the sub-station is not a
factory and as such is not covered under Employee State Insurance Act, the Head-office of the
petitioner or the generating unit of petitioner are not covered under this Act and as such the
petitioner cannot be covered under this act.

Facts/Argumentations of the Case

1. No notification was issued under Section 1(5) of the Employee State Insurance Act for
the coverage of petitioner under the Act.
2. The Head-office of the petitioner or the generating unit of petitioner are not covered
under this Act and as such the petitioner cannot be covered under this act.
3. The Sub-Station of the petitioner was not a factory as no manufacturing process was
being carried out the sub-station and as such not covered under the Employee State
Insurance Act.
4. The demand made by the Board was illegal as the sub-station was not a factory which is
to be covered under the provision of Employee state Insurance Act.
Decision and Appeal
 A. The Employee Insurance court made the judgment in the favor of the Board and directed
the Corporation to pay its contribution towards the employees insurance.
B. The Corporation filed appeal against the Court under Section 75 of the Employee State
Insurance Act for its judgment in favor of Board.
Reviews
1. The appeal made by the Bhakra Beas Management Board for the demand of the
coverage of its sub-station under the provision of Employee State Insurance Act was
illegal as the sub-stations were not factories.
2. No manufacturing process was being carried out at these sub-stations ,thus they were
not factories.
3. These sub-stations were set up only for the purpose of supply of electricity to
different States and Union Territories.
4. Also the head office was not covered under the Employee States Insurance Act so as
the sub-station was also not covered under this Act..
5. The Insurance Court made the judgment in the favor of the Board without hearing the
respondent which was not according to the natural justice.
6. The respondents must be heard before making the judgment.
7. The investigation of the case might have been done in detail before any judgment.
8. Neither the Board nor the corporation impleaded either before the Employees State
Insurance Court or before the High Court which violates the principles of natural
justice.
Conclusion
The case was regarding a dispute among the Employee State Insurance Corporation and the
Bhakra Beas Management Board wherein the Board demanded for the coverage of its sub-station
under the provision of Employees State Insurance Act. The demand made by the employees was
illegal as the sub-station was not a manufacturing unit which is to be covered under the provision
of the Employee States Insurance Act. Also the concerned parties were not impleaded in
Insurance Court nor the notice was issued to them by the Court which violates the principles of
Natural Justice. The court might have been done a detailed investigation of the case before the
judgment and also must have been heard the corporation. The Violation of principles of the
natural justice was found in the case.