Db is wrong in esi case former judge k Chandru opinion by Sekar Reporter · January 1, 2020 [12/31/2019, 18:59] Sekarreporter 1: The Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta, Justices Soumen Sen and Saugata Bhattacharya held that organisations and institutions are by definition institutions either of a charitable nature or educational institutions, which are bound to be employing teachers and staff for imparting education. Hence, they are most certainly within the meaning of ‘establishments’ under Section 1(5) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. https://sekarreporter.com/the-division-bench-of-the-high-court-of-calcutta-justices-soumen-sen-and-saugata-bhattacharya-held-that-organisations-and-institutions-are-by-definition-institutions-either-of-a-charitable-nature-or/ [12/31/2019, 20:17] Sekarreporter 1: [12/31, 20:12] Sekarreporter 1: [12/31, 19:50] mhc advocate R.Natarajan: Sekar sir The division bench judgement of Calcutta high court has not laid down the correct legal position on the application of ESI on educational institutions In 1978 the Bangalore water supply case laid down the principles that the education institutions are classified as industry There after in 2001 the eleven judges constitution bench popularly known as TMA Pai case laid down the legal principles that the education institutions are neither industry nor business but classified it as occupation The orders of the division bench of our madras high court dated 9/6/2015 in a batch of writ petitions on the applicability of esi unequivocally states that the interim orders continues till the disposal of the case State of U.P. VS . Jai Bir Singh case reported in 2005 ( 5 ) SCC page 1, the question of law has been referred to the larger bench of the Supreme Court , ie Whether the Employees State insurance Act 1948,would apply to educational institutions . , to my knowledge the constitution bench of the supreme court has not disposed or answered the above reference till date. Hence the interim orders passed by the division bench is legally and effectively in force In another case a special leave to appeal(C ) No (s) 28285 0f 2009 arising out of final judgement and order dated 03/07/2009 in wp no20279 of 2008 passed by the High Court of Kerala, In the above case the Supreme Court judgement simply dismissed the slp at the admission stage itself and the judgement of the Honourable division bench of the madras High court dated 09/06/2015 was neither discussed nor over ruled by the Hon’ble supreme court. On the above judgement and further the supreme court has not laid down any law or any positive direction or opinion on the ESI matter on its dismissal order against our order. On the other hand, it simply dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants stating that we do not have any legal or valid ground for interference and dismissed the special leave petition accordingly. The madras high court passed the order with specific inbuilt conditions and gave positive direction with the consent of ESI department which is as follows: “in view of the afore said position, the writ appeals and the writ petitions are disposed by agreement that the interim orders would continue till the disposal of the matter by the constitution bench of the honourable supreme court and the parties could naturally remain bound by the legal position enunciated by the honourable supreme court Natarajan R Advocate [12/31, 19:55] Sekarreporter 1: Super sir [12/31, 20:15] Sekarreporter 1: [12/31, 20:15] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1212021813246476288?s=08 [12/31, 20:15] Sekarreporter 1: mhc advocate R.Natarajan: Sekar sir The division bench judgement of Calcutta high court has not laid down the correct legal position on the application of ESI on educational institutions https://t.co/U9nRxOJ8Ud https://t.co/fq7dw4fa2x [1/1, 07:56] Sekarreporter 1: [12/31/2019, 23:24] K. Chandru Former Judge Of Highcourt: Madras DB wrong decision.Calcutta DB sets the correct legal position.peoplewho have nothing to with labour law should not give certificates with hollow legal premises!! [1/1, 07:51] Sekarreporter 1: 👍👍 [1/1, 08:32] Sekarreporter 1: [1/1, 08:16] Natarajan: Thanks for your apriciatiin I will be much thankful and will learn law if you Explain and justify. how the judgement of our first bench is wrong Happy new year Natarajan [1/1, 08:25] Sekarreporter 1: 👍 [1/1, 09:36] Sekarreporter 1: [1/1, 08:40] K. Chandru Former Judge Of Highcourt: My order on the same issue is exaustive.please read.it was upheld by one DB.No SLP filed.As usual people like you the advisors of private magts.took yet another matter on appeal and got an unundderstandable order which can be used for time pass.mr Natarajan if a matter is referred by a larger bench in supreme court by two judges will high court grand stay on the basis of the reference order or follow the existing 7judge bench order.you know how convenient orders are passed.according people like you the self financing mafias who run educational institutions will have no law applicable to them.only vitamin “M” is the sole law that will be applied.In this new year let that tribe diminish&rule of law thrive!! [1/1, 08:41] Sekarreporter 1: 👍
[1/20, 19:30] sekarreporter1: Supreme Court throws out Nirbhaya gang rape convict’s plea: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-dismisses-nirbhaya-gang-rape-convicts-plea/article30607029.ece [1/20, 19:30] sekarreporter1: January 20, 2020 by Sekar Reporter · Published January 20, 2020
In the result, this Writ Petition stands allowed. The impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent made in his proceedings No.5313/ntep#h/2017 dated 27.04.2021 and the consequential letter No.5313/ntep#h_jm_2021 dated 23.06.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent are quashed. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to fix the date of regularization from the date the petitioners have completed 480 days of service with all service benefits and fix them in the time scale of pay of those falling under category Grade -I (higher post) of electrician/ fitter having qualification of SSLC passed with ITI certificate and place them in the time scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 and pay their monetary benefits with effect from 01.08.2006 as per G.O.111 Municipal Department dated 20.09.2006. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 17.10.2023 Index : Yes Internet : Yes/No jrs To 1.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, No.31,Kamarajar Salai, Chennai 600 005. 2.The Secretary cum General manager, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, No.31,Kamarajar Salai, Chennai 600 005. 3.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Coimbatore & Nilgiri Circle, Pillur Scheme, Vinobaji Nagar, Peelamedu P.O. Vilankuruchi, Coimbatore 641 004. 4.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, ETK circle, No.2, CMSJ Nagar, KanniRowthar Kulam, Verappan Chatram, Erode- 638 004. R.N.MANJULA , J. jrs W.P No.18375 of 2021 and WMP.No.19589 of 2021 17.10.2023 of 10 October 31, 2023 by Sekar Reporter · Published October 31, 2023