Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 – BCCI if a “shop” for the purposes of ESI Act – Held: BCCI can be said to be a “shop” for the purposes of attracting the provisions of ESI Act – Considering the overall systematic activities being carried out by the BCCI namely, selling of tickets of cricket matches; providing entertainment; rendering the services for a price etc., the ESI Court as well as the High Court rightly concluded that the BCCI is carrying out systematic economic commercial activities and, therefore, it can be said to be “shop” for the purposes of attracting the provisions of ESI Act – After analysing the material on record, the ESI Court and the High Court recorded the findings that the BCCI is a profit earning institution and is engaged in entertainment industry as it provides entertainment to the customers at a price, i.e., by selling tickets and therefore, it must pass on the benefits to its employees by extending the coverage of ESI contribution on the wages payable to the coverable employees – The findings recorded are on appreciation of evidence and as such are not required to be interfered in exercise of the powers u/Article 136 – While treating the BCCI as a “shop” for the purposes of applicability of the ESI Act, the High Court has also taken into consideration the relevant clauses of the Memorandum of Association of the BCCI – The Memorandum of Association as a whole is required to be considered – Further, ESI Act being a beneficial legislation, the broadest meaning should be given so as to achieve the object and purpose of its enactment namely, to provide certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity in case of female employees, employment injury etc. – No reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court as well as the ESI Court – Constitution of India – Article 136. Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 – Applicability of – Discussed.
Interpretation of Statutes – Held: Two statutes are said to be pari materia with each other when they deal with the same subject matter – Words used in a particular statute cannot be used to interpret the same word in a different statute especially in light of the fact that the two statues are not pari materia with each other and have a wholly different scheme from one another.
Bangalore Turf Club Limited Vs. Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation. 2014 (9) SCC
657 : [2014] 8 SCR 1021 – relied on.
Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India and Ors. Vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 161 : [1995] 1 SCR 1036; Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sai Publication Fund (2002) 4 SCC 57 : [2002] 2 SCR 743 – held inapplicable.
Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation Vs. Francis De Costa 1993 Supp (4) SCC 100 : [1992] 3 SCR 23 ; Transport Corporation of India Vs. Employees’ State Insurance Corpn. and Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 332: [1999]
4 Suppl. SCR 393; Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Venkatiah [AIR 1964 SC 1272] : [1964] SCR 265; Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant Vs. Deputy Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (2009) 9 SCC
61 : [2009] 13 SCR 1139 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.