HINDU JEA BAND, JAIPUR versus REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, JAIPUR ETC.

HINDU JEA BAND, JAIPUR versus REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, JAIPUR ETC.

The business premises of the petitioner is a 'shop' as it sells services for stipulated price on wages, meeting the requirements of the Act; section 1(5) does not constitute excessive delegation, and the application of the Act is not violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 21.

Parties
Petitioner: M/s Hindu Jea Band, Jaipur; Respondent: Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Jaipur
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 February 1987
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) and Civil Writ Petition Under Article 32 / Supreme Court Appeal and Writ Adjudication
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Employees State Insurance, Definition of Shop, Excessive Delegation, Application to Seasonal Business, Constitutional Validity
Labour Law Constitutional Law Employees State Insurance Definition of Shop Excessive Delegation Application to Seasonal Business Constitutional Validity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/s Hindu Jea Band, Jaipur

Petitioner

Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Jaipur

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) and Civil Writ Petition Under Article 32 / Supreme Court Appeal and Writ Adjudication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the business premises of Hindu Jea Band is a 'shop' under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948
  2. 2 Whether section 1(5) of the ESI Act constitutes excessive delegation of essential legislative powers
  3. 3 Whether the Act's application to seasonal/intermittent businesses violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The business premises of the petitioner is a 'shop' as it sells services for stipulated price on wages, meeting the requirements of the Act; section 1(5) does not constitute excessive delegation, and the application of the Act is not violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 21.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Special Leave Petition dismissed
  • Writ Petition under Article 32 dismissed