KARPAGAMBAL MILLS LIMITED Vs. FIRST ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL COURT (EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATIONOURT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above write petition has been filed seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari and call for the records, connected with E.I.O.P.S.R. No. 40628 of 1987 on the file of the first respondent herein, the first Additional City Civil Court. Madras (Employees' Insurance Court) dated August 3, 1987, and to quash the same.

(2.) Heard learned counsel appearing on either side. The petitioner-company is having a mill at Cholapuram Rajapalayam, in Kamarajar District and has been said to have engaged apprentices in their mill under a scheme to train apprentices which nil scheme is claimed to have been in effect from March, 1985. It is also said that the mill is governed by its standing orders made and certified under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act which is claimed to have permitted the engagement of apprentices. It is also stated that such apprentices have been taken for the purposes of training without any right of recruitment and were being given training on various aspects of the textile mill so as to enable them to secure employment elsewhere. In such circumstances, the petitioner appears to have received a letter from the second respondent dated April 24, 1986, pointing out the fact that 89 apprentices engaged by the petitioner from March 21, 1985, should be registered immediately, under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), since they were not covered by the Apprentices Act or sponsored by the State or the Central Government. The petitioner was said to have submitted a reply on June 4, 1986. pointing out that the apprentices engaged under the said scheme could not be said to be its employees within the meaning of the Act irrespective of the fact whether they were covered by the Apprentices Act or sponsored by the State or the Central Government. Thereupon, the petitioner appears to have begin served with a letter dated December 16, 1986, calling on them to cover the said apprentices under the Act and also honour a demand for the remittance of Rs. 4,561.55. Aggrieved, the petitioner-company filed a petition under section 75 of the Act before the Employees' Insurance Court which in this case has been filed before the City Civil Court, Madras. The registry of the City, Civil Court appears to have pointed out in an office note that the petitioner is carrying on the business at Cholapuram, Rajapalayam in Kamarajar District, that the City Civil Court in Madras has been constituted under section 74 of the Act for the local areas mentioned in G.O. No. 1969. Labour, dated April 6, 1965, and that, therefore, the petitioner may state as to how it is claimed that the City Civil Court, Madras, exercises jurisdiction as the Employees' Insurance Court in this matter. The petitioner has returned the matter stating that since the respondent-Corporation's office is within the local limits of the court in question, the said court has got jurisdiction. The presiding officer of the court in question has ordered the same to be called in court and the court after hearing the matter ordered that the objection raised by the office note is correct and the petition was, therefore, returned to the petitioner for presentation to the proper court having jurisdiction to entertain the same, by his order dated August 3, 1987. Aggrieved by the above, the writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that apart from the fact that the respondent-Corporation which initiated the proceedings is having its office within the limits of the first respondent court, the dispute relating to the liability of the petitioner to register the apprentices for the purposes of the Act and demanding the contribution arose in Madras wherefrom the notices emanated and that the objections were also heard by the office of the second respondent-Corporation at Madras and that, therefore, the order passed by the first respondent court is contrary to law and the same is liable to be set aside and the first respondent court must be directed to entertain the matter and proceed with further course of action.