[2016] 1 S.C.R. I 045

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD.

v.

E.S.I. CORPORATION & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 49 of2006 etc.)

FEBRUARY 29, 2016

[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.]

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - s. 2(9) -Definition

of 'employee' -Whether would cover 'casual workers' -Held: In

view of ss. 2(22), 2(27) of the ES/ Act; r. 2(2A) of ES/ (Central)

Rules; and Regulation 36

of

ES/ (General) Regulations, 'Casual

Workers' would

be covered by the definition of 'employee' in s. 2(9)

-Employees'

State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 -r. 2(2A) -

employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950-:;: ~g. 33.

Allowing the appeals preferred by ESI Corporation, the

Court

HELD:

1.1. The definition of

"employee" under s. 2(9) of

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 is very wide. A person who

is employed for wages in the factory or establishment on any work

of,

or incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work is

covered. The definition brings various types of employees within

its ken. The Act

is a welfare legislation and

'8 required to be

interpreted so as to ensure extension of benefits to the

employees and l.IOt to deprive them of the same which are available

under the Act. [Para .5][1049-F; 1050-G-H]

1.2 A bare reading of th~ aforesaid provisions makes it

clear that it would cover the "casual employees" employed for a

few days on a work of perennial nature and wages as defined in

section 2(22) and wage period as defined in section 2(23) does

not exclude the wages payable to casual workers. They ·cannot

be deprived of the beneficial provisions of the Act. [Para 8]

[1053-C]

1.3 Section 39 deals with the contribution payable under

the Act with respect

to the employee in respect of each

"wage

period" shall ordinarily fall due on the last day of the wage period,

and where an employee

is employed for

"part" of the wage period

1045

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20 l 6] l S.C.R.

A or is employed under two or more employers during the same

wage period, the contributions shall fall due

on such days as may

be specified in the Regulations. It is apparent from section 39 of

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 that an employee who is

employed for a part of the wage period is

also covered for the

B

c

purposes of contribution. It is also provided in section 39(5) that

in case contribution is not paid, it shall carry 12% interest per

annum

or such higher rate as may be specified in the Regulations

till the date

of actual payment and the amount is recoverable as

arrears of

land revenue. S. 42 also does not prescribe that

employee has to work for a particular period for availing benefit

of the said provision. [Paras 6 and 7][1051-A-B; 1052-A-B, C-E]

1.4 Rule 2(2A) of Employees' State Insurance (Central)

Rules, 1950 provides period not exceeding six consecutive

months as "contribution period", no minimum period has been

prescribed. The Rule· 2(2A) cannot be interpreted to mean that if

D an employee has worked for a lesser period he is not entitled for

the coverage under the Act. [Para 9][1053-E]

1.5 Regulation 36 of Employees' State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950 also makes it clear that when an employee is

employed by an employer for a part of the wage period, the

E" contribution in respect of such wage period shall fall due on the

last date of the employment in that wage period. The intendment

of regulation is clear to cover work rendered in part of wage

period. [Para 10][1053-G-H]

1.6 It cannot be said that casual workers·are not covered

F

under the ambit of Employees' State Insurance Act. The employees' work for the day of racing which is perennial activity

of Royal Turf Club and in view of the provisions of the Act, Rules,

Regulations and notification dated 18.9.1978, there

is no doubt

that such employees are covered

arid consequently are entitled

G

H

for benefit of the Act. [Paras 11 and 12][1056-D-F]

I. 7 The ESI Corporation cannot be held bound by the

consent terms, in Application (ESI) No.16/1976 filed by the Turf

Club. In the aforesaid case the period involved was as specified

in the notification dated 26.2.1976 which w11s prior and not related

to the period in question 1978-79 to 1982-83 involved in C.A.

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD. v. E.S.I.

CORPORATION & ORS.

No.49/2006 and in other appeals also the period is subsequent

thereto. After issuance of the notification dated 18.9.1978

by the

Government

of Maharashtra, the remaining departments of Turf

Club which were left out earlier were specifically covered under

the purview

of the

ESI Act. Thus, the demand in the instant case

is based upon the notification dated 18.9.1978 which left no room

to entertain any doubt that the establishments

of the aforesaid

department in question were also covered under the

ESI Act.

Thus,

no benefit can be derived by the consent terms which related

to the earlier period when notification dated 18.9.1978 had not

been issued. Notification has

statutory force and agreement

cannot supersede it.

It is also clear that several departments of

race club were covered under

the notification issued in 1968.

[Para 13][1056-G; 1057-B-D]

Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation,

Madras V. South India Flour Mills (P) Ltd. AIR 1986 SC 1686

: 1986 (2) SCR 86.J -relied on.

Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Gnanambikai Mills

Ltd.

(1974) 2 Lab. Law Journal 530 (Mad.)-sto.od overruled.

Employees' State Insurance Corpn. v.

Premier Clay Products

(1994) Supp. 3 SCC. 567 -.distinguished.

2. The payment should have been ord"ered with effect from

1978-79 onwards instead

of 1987. The notification dated 18.9.1978

is clear and has to be given full effect.

!twas clear from notification

of 1968 itself that Turf Club was covered under ESI Act as is

apparent from consent terms! The notification dated 18.9.1978

included other left out departments 11f race club. The provisions

of ESI Act were complied with by Turf Club w.e.f. 1968. The High

Court on the facts of the case has erred in quashing the demand

for the contribution with effect from

1978 till

198.7. The Tnrf Club

is liable to make the contribntion as per notification dated

18.9.1978 along with interest at such rate as provided in the Act

and the Rules till the date of actual payment.

{Paras 14 and 15][1057-E-F, H; 1058-A-B]

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Hyderabad Race

Club (2004) 6 SCC 191 -distinguished.

1047

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I S.C.R.

A

B

Case Law Reference

(2004l 6 sec 191 distinguished. Para3

1986 (2) SCR 863 relied on. Para 11

(1974) 2 Lab. Law Journal

530 (Mad.) stood overruled. Para 11

(1994) Supp. 3 sec 567 distinguished. Para 12

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 49

of2006

c From the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2005 of the High Court

of Judicature at Bombay in First Appeal No. 619 of2005

WITH

C. A. NOS. 1575/2006, 3421/2012, 3422/2012

Jamsheed Cama, Govindram Talreja, Ruby Singh Ahuja, Chahat

D Chawla, Manik Karanjawala, Harsh Trivedi, (for Mis. Karanjawala &

Co.), V. J. Francis for the Appellant.

E

F

M. N. Krishnamani, Mahesh Srivastava, Vaibhav M. Srivastava,

P. N. Puri, P. V. Yogeswaran for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

AR UN.MISHRA, J. I. The questions involved for decision in

-these appeals are whether casual workers are covered under definition

of

employee as defined in

Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance

Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as' ESI Act') and pertaining to period

for which Turf Club is liable to pay from 1978-79 or from 1987.

2. The main question involved in the present appeals whether the

ES! Act is applicable to Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. has been

concluded by a 3-Judge Bench decision of this Court vide judgment

dated 31.7.2014. lt has been held that the TurfClubwould fall within the

meaning of the word 'shop' as mentioned in the notification issued under

G the ES! Act. Therefore, the provisions of ESI Act would extend to the

appellant also. Thereafter the matters have been placed before a Division

Bench to consider other questions on merit.

H

3. It was submitted on behalf of Royal Western India Turf Club

Ltd. that temporary staff engaged on race-days for issue of tickets,

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD. v. E.S.I.

CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

would not be covered by the definition. of the "employee" under Section

2(9)

of the Employees

State Insurance Act, 1948. lt was also submitted

that

in view of the consent terms filed in Application No.16/1976 by the

Turf

Club before the ES! Court, Bombay, the casual labour engaged on

·race track were not to be covered under the ES! Act. It was further

submitted that

in view of Rule 2A of the Employees'

State Insurance

(Central) Rules, 1950, contribution is required to be made for a period as

may be prescribed

in the Regulations and in view of Regulations 29 and

3

I of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950, it

would be difficult to calculate the contribution for the employees who

work casually on the racing days.

It was also submitted that the direction

issued by the High

Court not to recover the amount before 1987 does

not call for any interference

in the appeal filed by

ES! Corporation, for

which reliance has been placed on a decision

of this

Court in Employees

State Insurance Corporation v. Hyderabad Race Club (2004) 6 SCC

191. •

4. Whereas it was contended on behalf of the ES! Corporation

that in view of the specific notification dated 18.9.1978 so far as Royal

Western India Turf Club Ltd. is concerned in Maharashtra, position was

clear as to applicability ofESI Act. The consent terms which have been

-relied upon related to the earlier period in which other establishments of

the Turf Club were covered. Ih the notification issued on 18.9.1978, the

departments

in question of the Turf

Club were also covered. Even the

consent term reflects that there was

no doubt that the Turf

Club was

covered under provisions

of the

ESJ Act w.e.f. 1968.

5. First we take up the question whether casual employees are

covered within the purview ofESIAct. Section 2(9) defines "employee",

the provision is extracted hereunder :

"2(9) "employee" means any person employed for wages in

or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment

to which this Act applies and -

(i) who is directly employed by the principal employer, on any

work of. or incidental or preliminary to or connected with

the work

of. the factory or establishment, whether such work

is done by the employee

in the factory or establishment

or

elsewhere; or

(ii) who is employed by or through an immediate employer, on

1049

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

1050

A

B

c

D

E

F

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] l S.C.R.

the premises of the factory or establishment or under the

supervision

of the principal employer or his agent on work

which is ordinarily

part of the work of the factory or

establishment or which is preliminary to the work carried on

in or incidental to the purpose of the factory or establishment;

or

(iii) whose services are temporarily lent or let on hire to the

principal employer by

the person with whom the person whose

services

are so lent or let on hire has entered into a contract

of service;

and includes any person employed

for wages on any work

connected with the administration of the factory or

establishment or any part, department or branch thereof or

with the

purchase of raw materials for. or the distribution or

sale

of the products oj, the factory or establishment or any

person engaged as apprentice, not being

an apprentice

engaged under the Apprentices Act,

1961 (52 of 1961), and

includes such person engaged as apprentice whose training

period

is extended to any length of time but does not include-

( a) any member of [the Indian] naval, military or air forces;

or

{b) any person so employed whose wages (excluding

remuneration for overtime

work) exceed such wages

as may

be prescribed by the Central Government a month:

Provided that an employee whose wages (excluding

remuneration for overtime work) exceed such wages as may

be prescribed by' the Central Government at any time after

(and not before) the beginning

of the contribution period,

shall continue

to be

an employee until the end of that period;"

The definition of "employee" is very wide. A person who is

G employed for wages in the factory or establishment on any work of, or

incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work is covered. The

definition brings various types of employees within its ken. The Act is a

welfare legislation

and is required to be interpreted so as to ensure

extension

of benefits to the employees and not to deprive them of the

same which are available under the Act.

H

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD. v. E.S.I.

CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

6. Section 39 deals with the contribution payable under the Act

with respect to the employee in respect

of each

"wage period" shall

ordinarily fall due on the last day

of the wage period, and where an

employee is employed for

"part" of the wage period or is employed

under two or more employers during the same wage period, the

contributions shall fall due on such days as may be specified in the

Regulations. Section

39 is extracted hereunder:

"39. Contributions. - (1) The contribution payable under

this Act

in respect of an employee shall comprise contribution

payable by the employer (hereinafter referred to as the

employers contribution) and contribution payable by the employee· (hereinafter referred to as the employees

contribution) and shall be paid to the Corporation.

(2) The contribution shall be paid at such rates as may be

prescribed by the Central Government:

Provided that the rates so prescribed shall not

be more than

the rates which were in

force immediately before the

commencement

of the Employees' State Insurance

(Amendment) Act,

1989.

(3) The wage period in relation

lo an employee shall be the

unit in respect of which all contributions shall be payable

under this Act.

(4) The contributions payable in respect of each [wage period}

shall ordinarily fall

due on the last

day of the [wage period},

and where

an employee is employed for part of the [wage

period}, or

is employed under two or more employers during

the same [wage period}, the contributions shall fall due

on

such days as may be specified in the regulations.

(5)(a)

If any contribution

payable under this Act is not paid

by the

principal employer

on the date on which such

contribution

has become due, he shall be liable to

pay simple

interest at the rate

of twelve per cent per annum or at such

higher rate

as may be specified in the regulations till the date

of its actual

payment:

Provided that hifther interest specified in the regulations shall

. not exceed the ?ending rate of interest charged by any

scheduled bank. ·

1051

A

B·

c

D

E

F

G

H

!052

A

B

c

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016) I S.C.R.

{b) Any interest recoverable under clause (a) may be recovered

as an arrear of land revenue or under section 45C to section

45-1..,

It is apparent from section 39 that an employee who is employed

for a part

of the wage period is also covered for the purposes of

contribution. The definition of the term

"employee" in section 2(9) is

also wide enough to cover casual employees who are employed for part

of wage period. It is also provided in section 39(5) that in case

contribution

is not paid, it shall carry 12% interest per annum or such

higher rate as may be specified

in the Regulations till the date of actual

payment and the amount

is recoverable as arrears of land revenue.

7. Section 42 deals with the general provisions as to payment of

contributions.

It is provided in section 42 that no employee's contribution

shall

be payable by or on behalf of an employee whose average daily

wages are below such wages as may be prescribed by the Central

Government. Sub-section (2)

of section 42 again provides that contribution

D

of the employer as well as the employee shall be payable by the principal

employer for the wage period

in respect of the whole or part of which

\"ages are payable to t~e employee and not otherwise. The provision

does not prescribe that employee has to work for a particular period for

availing benefit of the said provision.

E

F

G

H

8. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the Turf

Club, on the

definitions

of wages and wage period. Sections 2(22) and 2(23) dealing

with wages and wage period are

as

follows :

"2(22). "'wages"' means all remuneration paid or payable in

· cash to an employee, if the terms of the contract of

employment, express or implied, were fulfilled and includes

any payment to

an employee in respect of any period of

authorised leave. lock-out, strike which is not illegal or layoff

and other additional remuneration,

if any, paid at intervals

not exceeding two months, but does not include

-

(a) any contribution paid by the employer to any pension fond

or provident fond, or under this Act;

{b) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling

concession;

(c) any sum paid to the person employed to defray special

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD. v. E.S.I. 1053

CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment; or A

(d) any gratuity payable on discharge ;

(23) "wage period" in relation to an employee means the

period in respect

of which wages are ordinarily payable to him

whether

in terms of the contract of employment, express or implied

or

otherwise;"

A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that it

would cover the "casual employees" employed for a few days on a

work

of perennial nature and wages as defined in section 2(22) and

wage period as defined in section 2(23) does not exclude the wages

payable to casual workers. They cannot be deprived of the beneficial

provisions of

the Act.

9. Reliance was placed on behalfofthe Turf Club on the provisions

contained in Rule 2(2A) which defines contribution period means the

period not exceeding six consecutive months as may be specified in the

Rules. The same is extracted hereunder:

"2(2A) "Contribution period" means the period not

exceeding six consecutive months,

as may be specified in the regulations;"

The aforesaid Rule provides period not exceeding six consecutive

months as "contribution period" no minimum period has been prescribed.

The Rule 2(2A) cannot be interpreted to mean that if an employee has

worked for a lesser period he is not entitled for the coverage under the

Act.

10. Similarly, reliance upon Regulations 26 to 3 I of Regulations of

1950 is also of no avail as the Regulations inake it clear that for the

wage period, contribution has to be made by the employer as provided in

Regulation 31 otherwise he is liable to make payment as provided in

Regulation 31 A and amount carry interest, which is recoverable as arrears

of land revenue. It is also settled that interest cannot be waived.

Regulation

36 also makes it clear that when an employee is employed by

an employer for a part of the wage period, the contribution in respect of

such wage period shall fall due on the last date of the employment in that

wage period. The intendment ofregulation is clear to cover work rendered

in

part of wage period. ·

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

1054

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I S.C.R.

11. This Court in Regional Director, Employees 'State Insurance

Corporation, Madras

v. South India Flour Mills (P) Ltd. [AIR 1986 SC 1686] has overruled the decision of the Madras High Court in

Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Gnanambikai Mills Ltd.

(1974) 2 Lab. Law Journal 530 (Mad.) in which the High Court laid

down that though casual employee may come within the definition

of the

term

"employee" under section 2(9) of the Act, yet they may not be

entitled to sickness benefits

in case their employment is less than the

benefit period or contribution period and that it does not appear from the

Act that casual employee should be brought within its purview. This Court while overruling decision of High Court held thus:

"8. Section 39 provides for contributions payable under the

Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 39 provides as follows:

"The contributions payable in respect of each week shall

ordinarily fall due

on the last day of the week, and where

an employee

is employed for part of the week, or is

employed under

two or more employers during the same

week, the contributions shall fall due

on such days as

may

be specified in the regulations.

"

9. Sub-section (4) clearly indicates employment of a casual

·employee when it provides "and where an employee is

employed for part of the week". When an employee is

employed

for part of a week, he cannot but be a casual

employee.

We may also refer to sub-section (3) of Section 42

relating

to general provisions as to payment of contributions.

Sub-section

(3) reads as follows:

"Where wages are payable to an employee for a portion

of the week, the employer shall be liable to pay both

the

employer

:S contribution and the employees

contribution for the week in full but shall be entitled to

recover from the employee the employees contribution. "

10. Sub-section (3), inter alia, deals with employer's liability

to

pay both

employer'.! contribution and the employees

contribution where wages· are payable to an employee for a

portion

of the week.

One of the circumstances when wages

may be payable

to an employee for a portion of the week is

that an employee is employed for less than a week, that is to

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD. v. E.S.I.

CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

say, a casual employee. Thus Section 39(4) and Section 42(3)

clearly envisage the case of casual employees. In other words,

it

is the intention of the Legislature that the casual employees

should also

be brought within the purview of the Act. It is

true that a casual employee may not

be entitled to sickness

benefit

as pointed out in the case ofGnanambikai Mills (1974

Lab.IC 798)(Mad) (supra). But, in our opinion, that cannot

be a ground for the view that the intention of the Act is that

casual employees should not

be brought within the purview

of the Act. Apart from sickness benefit there are other benefits

under the Act including disablement benefit

to which a casual

employee will

be entitled under Section 51 of the Act. Sec/ion

5

J does not lay down any benefit period or contribution

period. There may again be cases when casual employees

are employed over the contribution period

and, in such cases,

they will be entitled

to even the sickness benefit. In the

circumstances, we hold that casual employees come within

the purview

of the Act. In Andhra Pradesh State Electricity

Board

v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad,

(1977) 1 LabLJ

54, Regional Director,

ESIC, Bangalore v.

Davangere Colton Mills, (1977) 2 LabLJ 404, and Employees'

State Insurance Corporation, Chandigarh. v. Oswal Woollen

Mills Ltd., 1980 LablC 1064, the Andhra Pradesh High Court,

Karnataka High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High

Court have rightly taken the view that casual employees are

employees within the meaning

of the term

"employee" as

defined

in Section 2(9) of the Act and, accordingly, come

within the purview

of the Act.

·

11. Indeed Dr. Chitaley, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondent company in Civil Appeal No. 819 (NL) of

1976, frankly concedes that it will be difficult for him to

contend that casual workers are not covered by the defll!ition

of the term "employee" under Section 2(9) of the Act. He,

however, submits that in the instant case the work in which

the casual workers

were employed by the respondent company,

namely,

Shri Shakthi Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd., not being the

work of the factory or incidental or preliminary to or

connected with the work of the factpry, such workers cannot

be employees within the meaning

of Section 2(9) of the Act.

1055

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

1056

A

B

c

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R.

The contention of the learned counsel is that the work of the

factory being "weaving", an employee within the meaning of

Section 2(9) must be employed on any work incidental or

preliminary to or connected with the work of weaving that is

carried on in the mill or factory. Counsel submits that the

work

of construction of factory buildings cannot be said to

be an activity or operation incidental to or connected with

the work

of the factory, which is weaving. Mr D.N. Gupta,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent

companies in the other cases adopts the contention

of Dr.

Chitaley and submits that the workers employed for the

construction

of the factory buildings do not come within the

purview

of the definition of

"employee" under Section 2(9)

of the Act. "

In view of the aforesaid decision it is apparent that the submission

raised by Royal

Turf Club that casual workers are not covered under

D the ambit

of ESI Act is too tenuous for its acceptance.

E

F

G

H

12. Mr. Cama, learned senior counsel has pressed into service a

decision

of this Court in Employees

'State Insurance Corpn. v. Premier

Clay Products

(1994)

Supp. 3 SCC 567. In the said case the work itself

was

of a sporadic nature. The coolies were available for work to others

and

on the very day worked for several othe.rs who also engaged them

for loading and unloading

of goods. Thus it was held that coolies could

not be said to be casual workmen under the ESI Act. The said decision

has absolutely no application to the fact situation

of the instant case

where work

is not sporadic in nature. The employees' work forthe day

ofracing which is perennial activity of Royal Turf Club and in view of

the provisions of the Act, Rules, Regulations and notification dated

18.9.1978, there

is no doubt that such employees are covered and

consequently are entitled for benefit

of the Act.

13. Coming to the submission that the ES! Corporation should be

held

bol'Od by the consent terms, the submission is factually incorrect,

misconceived, legally untenable and otherwise also devoid

of the

substance.

In Application (ES!) No.16/1976 filed by the Turf Club, the

ES! Corporation agreed on the basis of Inspection Report dated

29.11.1975 and in Memorandum dated 14.4.1976 it was mentioned that

employees

of the Turf Club in the electrical and mechanical

w-0rkshop,

factory division, general department -motor-garage (factory division),

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD. v. E.S.I.

CORPORATION & ORS. (ARUN MISHRA, J.]

security department, carpentry shop, personnel department and accounts

department would be covered under the ESI Act with effect from

28.1. I 968. It was agreed that such employees of the Turf Club have

already been covered and shall continue to be covered as before and the

employees of Racing Administration Department, casual labour engaged

on race track, temporary staff engaged on race days for issue of tickets/

dividends

were not covered. In the aforesaid case the period involved

was

as specified in the notification dated 26.2.1976 which was prior and

not related to the period in question 1978-79 to 1982-83 involved in C.A.

No.49/2006 and in other appeals also the period is subsequent thereto.

After issuance of

the notification dated 18.9.1978 by the Government of

Maharashtra,

the remaining departments of Turf Club which were left

out earlier were specifically covered under the purview of the

ES! Act.

Thus, the demand in the instant case is based upon the notification dated

18.9. ! 978 which left no room to entertain any doubt that the establishments ·

of the aforesaid department in question were also covered under the

ES! Act. Thus, no benefit can be derived by the consent terms which

related to the earlier period when notification dated 18.9.1978 had not

been issued. Notification ha$ statutory force and agreement cannot

supersede

it. It is also clear that several departments of race club were

covered under the notification issued in 1968. Thus, the submission raised

on

th~ basis of consent terms is hereby rejected.

14. Coming to the appeal preferred by the ES! Corporation raising

question that

the payment should have been ordered with effect from

1978-79 onwards instead of 1987 as in view of notification dated

18.9.1978, there

was no room to doubt that departments in question of

·the Turf Club were also covered under ES! Act. In our opinion, the

notification of 1978 is clear and has to be given full effect, for earlier

period also

the consent terms indicated that various other departments

of Turf

Club were covered under the notification of 1968. Reliance on

the decision of this Court in Hyderabad Race Club case (supra) so as

to waive the contribution from 1975 to 1986, is not available as in the

instant case there was no doubt as to applicability of

ES I Act in view of

the specific notification issued in 1978. The provisions of ES! Act were

applied to various departments ofTurfClub w.e.f. 1968. The decision in

Hyderabad Race Club case (supra) turned on its own different factual

matrix. In this case, it was clear from 1968 itself that Turf Club was

covered under ES! Act as is apparent from consent terms. The

notification

dated 18.9 .1978 included other left out departments ofrace

1057

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R.

A club. The provisions of ES! Act were complied with by Turf Club w.e.f.

1968. The High Court on the facts of the case has erred in quashing the

demand for the contribution with effect from 1978 till 1987.

15. In our opinion, the Turf

Club is liable to make the contribution

as per notification dated 18.9.1978 along with interest at such rate as

B provided

in the Act and the Rules till the date of actual payment. Let the

amount be contributed within a period

of three months from today.

Consequently, the appeals preferred by ES! Corporation are allowed

and the ones preferred by Turf Club are dismissed with costs of Rs.2

lakhs payable to the ES!Corporation.

C Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals allowed.