Regional Director Vs Shree Mahila Gruh Udyog Lijjatpapad (Gujarat High Court)
The Gujarat High Court heard two appeals together as they involved the same facts and issues. The appeals were filed by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESI Corporation) under Section 82(2) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, challenging the orders of the E.S.I. Court, Rajkot in E.S.I. Application Nos. 32/90 and 29/90. The E.S.I. Court had allowed the applications filed by Shree Mahila Gruh Udyog Lijjat Papad under Section 75 of the E.S.I. Act and had declared that the women engaged in rolling papads were not “employees” within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Act, that they were not paid wages, that the organisation did not attract Section 2(12) of the Act, and had consequently cancelled the contribution notices issued by the ESI Corporation.
Shree Mahila Gruh Udyog Lijjat Papad stated that it was a society registered under the Societies Act, 1960 and also a public trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. It operated branches throughout India, with approximately 9,000 women associated with it. According to the organisation, any major woman capable of rolling at least three kilograms of papads per day could become a member without making any investment. The work of rolling papads was carried out independently by the members at their homes, without supervision. It was further stated that the organisation worked for the upliftment of women belonging to the lower strata of society, and that profits earned were distributed among the members either in cash or kind. On this basis, it contended that it did not fall within the definition of an industry or establishment to which the E.S.I. Act applied and challenged the contribution notices issued by the ESI Corporation.
