9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the company and are to be counted with other 7 employees. Thus, the respondent comes within the purview of the Act. Thus the present appeals filed by the Corporation are allowed. - FAO NOS. 433 AND 442 OF 1988 - - - Dated:- 2-3-2009 - RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. Vikas Suri for the Appellant. JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. ‑ This order shall dispose of two F. A. Os. bearing Nos. 433 and 442 of 1988 filed against the order dated January 28, 1988, passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Gurgaon. Since identical question of law and facts are involved therein, therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, the facts are taken from F. A. O. No. 433 of 1988 titled Employees State Insuranc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contested by the Corporation in which it was claimed that at the time of inspection, 10 persons were found working. Moreover, the directors receiving remuneration were also employees under section 2(9) read with section 2(12) of the Act. 4. Learned court below vide its order dated January 28, 1988, held that the directors are not covered by the definition of section 2(9) of the Act, there fore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the case of the respondent. 5. Mr. Vikas Suri, learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation has vehemently contended that the matter has now been settled by the apex court in the case of Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Apex Engineering (P.) Ltd. [1998] 1 SCC 86. It is submitted that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yee within the meaning of section 2, sub-section (9) of the Act and hence the company cannot be said to have employed 20 employees so as to be considered as a factory under section 2, sub-section (12) of the Act. 8. In the said case, the apex court after taking into account the definition of "employee" as provided under section 2, sub-section (9) of the Act and other judicial precedents, came to a conclusion that the managing director may have dual capacity because in the Act, there is nothing to indicate that a managing director being the principal employer cannot be an employee. Thus, it was held that if the managing director is receiving remuneration for his work from the company, then he can be treated to be an employee within the mea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
