Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Employees' State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950

7 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD.versusE.S.I. CORPORATION & ORS.

2016 INSC 22129 February 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether casual workers employed by Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. on race days fell within the definition of "employee" under Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, and consequently whether the club was liable to pay ESI contributions from the 1978-79 period. Relying on

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATIONversusALL INDIA I.T.D.C. EMPLOYEES UNION AND ORS.

2006 INSC 17424 March 2006Disposed off

The Union of Employees of a Government undertaking challenged a notification that enhanced employee and employer contributions under the Employees State Insurance Act, claiming it did not apply to them. A Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ as non‑maintainable but directed the ESIC to "consider" waiving the contrib

M/S. BHARAGATH ENGINEERINGversusR. RANGANAYAKI AND ANR.

2002 INSC 57220 December 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased employee of Mis. Bharagath Engineering died in an accident alleged to have occurred in the course of his employment. The employer argued that the claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 should be barred because the employee was an "insured person" under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, de

MR. A TREHANversusM/S. ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AGENCIES AND ANR.

1996 INSC 67110 May 1996Dismissed

Mr. A. Trehan, an employee of M/s. Associated Electrical Agencies, suffered a serious eye injury while repairing a television. As an insured person under the Employees' State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948, he received benefits from the ESI Corporation and later filed a claim for additional compensation under the Workmen's

DIRECTOR GENERAL, ESI AND ANR.versusT. ABDUL RAZAK ETC.

1996 INSC 7068 July 1996Disposed off

The case concerned disciplinary proceedings against two employees of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). The Regional Director of Karnataka initiated proceedings, and the Director General later imposed a penalty. The respondents challenged the memoranda initiating the proceedings and the Director General

KISHORELALversusCHAIRMAN, E.S.I. CORPORATION

2007 INSC 5278 May 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Kishore Lal, an employee insured under the Employees' State Insurance (ESI) scheme, complained that his wife received negligent medical treatment at an ESI dispensary, leading to her condition worsening. He filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum seeking compensation for negligence, but

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search