, 2016 3 AWC2448 SC , 2016 (3 )BomCR289 , 2016 (4 )CDR930 (SC ), 121 (2016 )CLT1098 , 2016 (I )CLR1054 , 120(3) CWN133 , [2016 (149 )FLR136 ], 2016 INSC 221 , 2016 LabIC1608 , (2016 )II LLJ1 SC , 2016 (2 )LLN3 (SC ), 2016 LLR437 , 2016 (3 )SCALE57 , (2016 )4 SCC521 , (2016 )1 SCC(LS)713 , 2016 (3 ) SCJ 675 , [2016 ]1 SCR1045 , 2016 (2 )SCT138 (SC ), 2016 (2 )SLJ87 (SC ), 2016 (3 )SLR216 (SC ), ,MANU/SC/0241/2016V. Gopala Gowda#Arun Mishra#210SC3020Judgment/OrderABR#AIR#AWC#BomCR#CDR#CLT#CuLR#CWN#FLR#INSC#LabIC#LLJ#LLN#LLR#MANU#SCALE#SCC#SCC(LS)#SCJ#SCR#SCT#SLJ#SLRArun Mishra,Insurance#InsuranceSUPREME COURT OF INDIA2016-3-1459,502,511,517,505,524 -->

MANU/SC/0241/2016

True Court CopyTM English

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 49, 1575 of 2006, 3421, 3422/2012

Decided On: 29.02.2016

Appellants: Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Respondent: E.S.I. Corporation and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
V. Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra

JUDGMENT

Arun Mishra, J.

1. The questions involved for decision in these appeals are whether casual workers are covered under definition of employee as defined in Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'ESI Act') and pertaining to period for which Turf Club is liable to pay from 1978-79 or from 1987.

2. The main question involved in the present appeals whether the ESI Act is applicable to Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. has been concluded by a 3-Judge Bench decision of this Court vide judgment dated 31.7.2014. It has been held that the Turf Club would fall within the meaning of the word 'shop' as mentioned in the notification issued under the ESI Act. Therefore, the provisions of ESI Act would extend to the Appellant also. Thereafter the matters have been placed before a Division Bench to consider other questions on merit.

3. It was submitted on behalf of Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. that temporary staff engaged on race-days for issue of tickets, would not be covered by the definition of the "employee" Under Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. It was also submitted that in view of the consent terms filed in Application No. 16/1976 by the Turf Club before the ESI Court, Bombay, the casual labour engaged on race track were not to be covered under the ESI Act. It was further submitted that in view of Rule 2A of the Employees' State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950, contribution is required to be made for a period as may be prescribed in the Regulations and in view of Regulations 29 and 31 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950, it would be difficult to calculate the contribution for the employees who work casually on the racing days. It was also submitted that the direction issued by the High Court not to recover the amount before 1987 does not call for any interference in the appeal filed by ESI Corporation, for which reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Hyderabad Race Club   MANU/SC/0554/2004 : (2004) 6 SCC 191.

4. Whereas it was contended on behalf of the ESI