LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/case-details-e-s-i-corporation-rep-by-the-regional-director-vs-m-s-endocrinology-and-immunology-lab-20230802/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Case Details E.S.I. Corporation, Rep. by the Regional Director vs M/s. Endocrinology and Immunology Lab

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
2 August 2023
Case No.
Civil Appeal No.3368 of 2012
Result
Dismissed
Bench
Hima Kohli, Rajesh Bindal
Citation
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 159 : 2023 INSC 665
Supreme Court Reports [2023] 11 S.C.R. 159 : 2023 INSC 665
Issue for consideration
Date from which the respondent establishment, a pathological laboratory will be covered under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948.
Headnote

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – s.1(5) – Notifi cation dated 06.09.2007 issued in terms of the power conferred u/s.1(5) –High Court held that the provisions of the 1948 Act will be applicable to the respondent w.e.f. 06.09.2007 and not from 22.11.2002 – Legality: Held : Respondent would be covered under the Act in terms of the Notification dtd.06.09.2007 issued by the Government of Kerala covering medical institutions including pathological laboratories from that date, where 20 or more persons were employed – The Notification was issued in terms of the power conferred u/s.1(5) of the Act in consultation with the Corporation and with the approval of the Central Government – If the pathological laboratories were already covered under the Act, as urged by the appellant-Corporation, there was no occasion to issue such a notification – Order passed by the High Court is in terms of the aforesaid notification directing coverage of the respondent establishment from that date onwards, as undisputedly, 20 or more persons were found to be employed in the establishment – Appellant argued that the respondent would fall within the term “shop” and the same is covered in terms of the notification dtd. 27.05.1976 –The argument that the respondent should be deemed to be covered in terms of the said notification r/w the Circular dtd. 22.11.2002, rejected – Appeal dismissed.[Paras 10, 12-16]

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – ss.1(4), 2(12), 14(AA) – Respondent establishment, a pathological laboratory if covered u/s.1(4) providing that the Act shall apply to all factories (including factories belonging to the Government) other than seasonal factories: Held : No – The term “factory” has been defined u/s.2(12) – “manufacturing process” has been defined in s.14 (AA) to give it a meaning as assigned to it u/s.2(k), Factories Act, 1948 – Respondent establishment will not be covered u/s.1(4) as it will not fall within the definition of a “factory”, since no manufacturing process is carried on therein. [Paras 7(iii), (iv) and 8]

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES

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.

Full Judgment Text

CASE DETAILS E.S.I. CORPORATION, REP. BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR v. M/S. ENDOCRINOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY LAB (Civil Appeal No.3368 of 2012) AUGUST 02, 2023 [HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Date from which the respondent establishment, a pathological laboratory will be covered under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – s.1(5) – Notifi cation dated 06.09.2007 issued in terms of the power conferred u/s.1(5) –High Court held that the provisions of the 1948 Act will be applicable to the respondent w.e.f. 06.09.20
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

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.

All SC judgments →