Skip to main content

24 years on, HC finds AC room is not cold storage

It took the judiciary 24 years to declare that an air conditioner makes a room cool and does not turn it into a cold storage.

This happened in a case pertaining to a city-based trading firm, Gokaldas Trading Co, which is a commission agent of chocolates, tomato ketchup and other food items. This firm had 10 employees and an AC was installed in the manager's room.

Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) declared it a factory saying it had more than 10 employees and was carrying out manufacturing with the aid of power. It showed an AC as the instrument used in the manufacturing activity.

ESIC concluded that according to Section 2K(vi) of the Factories Act, by employing more than 10 persons and preserving and storing food articles in a cold storage, which is a manufacturing activity, the firm fell in the category of a factory. With this, ESIC sent a notice to the firm, asking it to pay Rs 68,278 as tax from 1983 and 1988.

After due communication with ESIC, the firm filed an application before an ESI court in 1991. This court dismissed the plea requesting that ESI Act should not be made applicable to it merely on the ground that an AC was installed in the manager's room. The firm moved the Gujarat high court in 1994 and argued that the AC was not meant to preserve food items, which were kept in a different room. The AC was used during office hours.

ESIC argued the manager was receiving a salary of just Rs 1,100 and no company would bother to provide AC facility to an employee with such a meager salary. It insisted that the AC was used to keep articles in cold storage.

After hearing the case, the HC said, "This court is of the opinion that the court below (ESI court) committed an error while giving the finding that chocolates, bournvita etc. are preserved in the AC room and the manager's AC chamber is a cold storage."

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/24-years-on-HC-finds-AC-room-is-not-cold-storage/articleshow/49575100.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...

Section 138 NI Act: Omission To Mention Nature Of Debt Or Liability In Notice Does Not Render It Invalid

In Crl.MC.No. 3289 of 2015, B.SURENDRA DAS vs STATE OF KERALA, the court was considering a petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that no demand for payment of the amount of the cheque was made by the complainant as per the notice sent by him and therefore, the notice is defective and the proceedings initiated against the accused pursuant to such notice cannot be sustained. The court observed that there is no statutory requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability. All the complainant has to do is to raise a demand for payment which is a notice to the debtor giving him time to pay but there is no format in which the notice is to be sent.