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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Even An Unregistered Partnership Firm Can Maintain ‘Cheque Bounce’ Complaint

In M/s Uttam Traders Ranghri vs. Tule Ram alias Tula Ram, an appeal was filed before the Himachal Pradesh High Court solely on the ground that one of the partners of the complainant-firm which is an unregistered partnership concern, had failed to prove that he was one of the partners of the complainant-firm and duly authorised by it to file the complaint and acquitted the respondent. The High Court decided that two questions arise for consideration in this matter :- 1) Whether acquittal by the magistrate solely on the ground that the managing partner of the appellant having failed to establish that he was one of the partners of the complainant-firm and duly authorised by it to file the complaint was correct 2) Whether a partner of an unregistered partnership firm can maintain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. For the first issue, the High Court referred to M/s Haryana State Co.Op., Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. M/s Jayam Text...
2 comments
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more