Important cases under ESI Act, 1948:-

M/s Cochin Shipping Co. v ESI Corporation AIR 1993 SC 252

The Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 is a welfare Legislation. Therefore, a liberal
interpretation has to be put on the notification extending its scope.

Regional Director ESIC Bangalore v Swarna Saw Mills 1979

The ESI Act does not make any difference between a causal or temporary or permanent
employee. It is wide enough to include even a causal employee employed for a day for
wages. Therefore, every person employed for wages on any work connected with the work of
a factory or establishment to which the Act applies, fall within the definition of ‘employee’.

 Part-time Workers and Daily wagers are also included. But apprentice is not covered.

Transport Corporation of India v ESIC AIR 2000 SC 238

The ESI Act is aimed at conferring benefits on employees in cases of sickness, maternity and
employment injury. It requires tat all employees in factories or establishments shall be
insured. The initial and vital endeavour should be to identify the beneficiaries of the
employees for insurance.

Once a notification is issued by a State Government for application of the ESI Act covering a
particular establishment of the State, automatically the said notification would cover all the
branches of such an establishment situated even outside such state, having complete
functional integrity with the main activity of the establishment.

Regional Director ESIC v Francis de Costa (1996) 6 SCC 1

There is not even a geographical limitation. The accident may occur within or outside the
territorial limits of India. However, the words ‘in the course of employment’ and ‘arising out
of employment’ imply a nexus or causal relationship between the accident and the
employment.

ESIC v Hotel Kalpaka International (1993) 2 SCC 9

Even if the employees had not availed the benefit of insurance, contributions for the past
period are recoverable.

BHEL v ESI Corporation 2008 LLR 562

While determining contributions, an opportunity of hearing is to be given to both principal
employer and the immediate employer. Determination of exact liability of contractor is
necessary when the contract came to end. No doubt the principal employer is ultimately
responsible for the payment of ESI contributions for the employees engaged through
contractor when he defaults to make payment of ESI contribution but at the same time it is
imperative on the part of ESI authorities to give opportunity for hearing to the principal
employer also before determining the liability of the contractor.

Regional Director ESIC v Narayan Chandra Raj Khowa (1997) 11 SCC 234
ESI court has jurisdiction to decide whether benefits availed of by employees prior to ESI
scheme were more advantageous than those under ESI scheme.

ESIC v C. Saseendram (2001) 9 SCC 349

An order of Employees Insurance Court is enforceable as if it were a decree passed in a suit
by a Civil Court.

Western India Plywood Ltd. v P. Ashokan AIR 1997 SC 3883

The Act disentitles employees to recover compensation not only under the Employees
Compensation Act rather under any law (including Torts). But, the ESI Act does not bar the
claims for compensation against a third party.

ESI Corpn. v H.M.T. Ltd. (2008) 3 SCC 35

The existence of mens rea or actus reus to contravene a statutory provision must also be held
to be necessary ingredient for levy of damages and quantum thereof.