LAWS(BOM)-2022-6-208

EMPRESS MILLS, A UNIT OFMAHARASHTRA STATE TEXTILE CORPORATIONLIMITED Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCECORPORATION

Decided On June 15, 2022
Empress Mills, A Unit Ofmaharashtra State Textile Corporationlimited Appellant
V/S
Employees State Insurancecorporation Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.

(2.) The present appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 19/09/2006 passed by learned Judge, Employee State Insurance Court, Nagpur in Application (ESI) No. 20/2003. By this judgment, the application of the appellant was dismissed upholding confirmation of attachment effected by respondent No.1 - ESI vide order dated 04/06/2003 and declaring the appellant as Principal Employer, for the purpose of computation of ESI dues during the tenure of lease granted by the appellant to respondent No.2 to run the Craft Paper Manufacturing Unit for the period 16/12/1994 to 15/12/2001.

(3.) The MSTC (Maharashtra State Textile Corporation) is a wholly owned Government of Maharashtra Enterprises. By an ordinance, the entire undertaking known as Empress Mills (Textile Unit), its Craft Paper Manufacturing Unit (Paper Division), stood vested in 1986 to MSTC. Simultaneously, with such a vesting the same was transferred to and vested with the MSTC. The Government of Maharashtra decided to close down the entire corporation and the process of closing down was under implementation with the approval of Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (for short 'BIFR'). Under the provisions of Industries Company (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the Corporation was declared as a sick industrial company. During the pendancy of the proceedings a proposal for running the said Craft Paper Manufacturing Unit was submitted before the BIFR by promoters of the respondent No.2 - Co-operative Society and the BIFR granted it's approval in principle for formation of such workers co-operative society for the running of the said paper unit of the appellant on co-operative basis. In view thereof, the appellant agreed to sign and execute a lease agreement with the respondent No.2 to run the paper division.