Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2017 9 1501 36004 Judgement 19-May-2022
2017 9 1501 36004 Judgement 19-May-2022
VERSUS
J U D G M E N T
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Leave granted.
counsel.
Digitally signed by
Page 1 of 26
Guwahati High Court has allowed the appeal of the
Page 2 of 26
mentions names of other areas/villages including the
located.
Page 3 of 26
7. Thereafter, the Regional Director of the Employees
respondent.
Page 4 of 26
factory is located is not covered by the 21.7.1999
below:-
Page 5 of 26
Tarapur, Rongpur, Durganagar, Gosaipur,
Srikona, under Mouza-Borakpur, Tarapur
etc.
12. From evidence on record it is
clear that Lamargram, Ramnagar is
situated within the Tarapur Village in
between Tarapur and Srikona. Several
part villages are included in the
Tarapur villages area and Lamargram,
Ramnagar is included in the Tarapur
Village, in the Notification Tarapur has
been included as a whole. This being
so, I hold that M/s. Kay Dee Cold
Storage Pvt. Ltd. – the petitioner was
included under the coverage of E.S.I.
Act vide Notification Ext. 2.
**** **** **** ****”
10. An appeal was then preferred under Section 82 of
proceeding:-
Page 6 of 26
accordingly allowed by setting aside the judgment dated
question No. (i), the Court opined that “only the area
21.7.1999”
Page 7 of 26
the Silchar Revenue Circle and since Village name is
Municipal Board.
Page 8 of 26
consequences, inasmuch as others in the area would then
understood accordingly.
dated 21.7.1999.
Page 9 of 26
13.2 According to Mr. Goswami, the learned counsel,
Page 10 of 26
records show that Part I to Part VIII segments of
Tarapur and the Tarapur Part VIII “B” town segment are
Revenue Circle.
Page 11 of 26
limits of the Silchar Municipal Corporation. If the
Page 12 of 26
Secunderabad vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies and
Page 13 of 26
18. The Central Government notification makes reference
Page 14 of 26
smaller areas within the limits of Silchar Municipal
3 (1988)4 SCC 21
Page 15 of 26
intended to cover several areas beyond the areas within
Page 16 of 26
a joint family”. Where the definition
is an inclusive definition, the use of
the word “includes” indicates an
intention to enlarge the meaning of the
word used in the statute. Consequently,
the word must be construed as
comprehending not only such things
which they signify according to their
natural import, but also those things
which the interpretation clause
declares that they shall include. Thus,
where a definition uses the word
“includes”, as contrasted from “means”,
the word defined not only bears its
ordinary, popular and natural meaning,
but in addition also bears the extended
statutory meaning (see S.K.
Gupta v. K.P. Jain [(1979) 3 SCC 54 :
AIR 1979 SC 734]
following Dilworth v. Commr. of
Stamps [1899 AC 99 : (1895-99) All ER
Rep Ext 1576 : 79 LT 473]
and Jobbins v. Middlesex Country
Council [(1949) 1 KB 142 : (1948) 2 All
ER 610 (CA)] ).”
Page 17 of 26
circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of
compelling circumstances.
the ESI Act. This could not have been the intention of
6Quebec Railway, Light, Heat & Power Co. V. Vandry, AIR 1920 PC 181
7 (2015) 1 SCC 142
Page 18 of 26
relation thereto. As the ESI Act is a beneficial piece
Page 19 of 26
Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and Ors.9 would
opinion:-
Page 20 of 26
representing the workmen concerned
must be made a party. Hence, in our
opinion the appellant (petitioner
before the Employees' Insurance
Court) should have impleaded at
least some of the persons concerned,
as respondents.
Page 21 of 26
“10. In the present case the workmen
concerned were not made parties before
the Employees' Insurance Court, nor was
notice issued to them by the said court.
Also, the order of the Employees'
Insurance Court dated 4-2-1993, relevant
portion of which we have quoted, is not a
very happy one as no proper determination
has been made therein as to whether the
workmen concerned are the employees of
the appellant and whether they are
entitled to the benefit of the Act.
Page 22 of 26
All questions of law and fact are left
open for the parties to be raised before
the Insurance Court.”
Page 23 of 26
28. In any case, non-joinder of a necessary party goes
Page 24 of 26
invite penal action envisaged by the legislation. But
Page 25 of 26
31. The terms of the notification cannot be any clearer
on costs.
………………………………………………………J.
[K.M. JOSEPH]
………………………………………………………J.
[HRISHIKESH ROY]
NEW DELHI
MAY 19, 2022
Page 26 of 26