ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD.versusE.S.I. CORPORATION & ORS.

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



          ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD.                            A
                                 v.
                 E.S.I. CORPORATION & ORS.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 49 of2006 etc.)
                       FEBRUARY 29, 2016                                B
       [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
                                                                        c
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
                                                                        D
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        E
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           F
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]
                                                                        G
[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
                                                                        H
                                1045
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
   purposes of contribution. It is also provided in section 39(5) that
 B
   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
 c 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
       for benefit of the Act. [Paras 11 and 12][1056-D-F]
 G
             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.
 H
     ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD. v. E.S.I.                         1047
               CORPORATION & ORS.

No.49/2006 and in other appeals also the period is subsequent             A
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
                                                                          B
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         c
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.                                    D
      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.
                                                                          E
       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         F
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         G
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.
                                                                          H
1048                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2016] I S.C.R.


 A                             Case Law Reference
       (2004l 6 sec 191                distinguished.            Para3
       1986 (2) SCR 863                relied on.                Para 11
       (1974) 2 Lab. Law Journal
 B     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.
              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
 E
             ARUN.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.
 F
         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.
             3. It was submitted on behalf of Royal Western India Turf Club
       Ltd. that temporary staff engaged on race-days for issue of tickets,
 H
      ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD. v. E.S.I.                            1049
        CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

would not be covered by the definition. of the "employee" under Section       A
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
                                                                              B
(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          c
 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          D
 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         E
 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 :                                        F

         "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         G
       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
                                                                              H
1050                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2016] l S.C.R.


 A         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
 B
           (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;
 c         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
 D         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
 E
           {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
 F
           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.                           1051
       CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

      6. Section 39 deals with the contribution payable under the Act       A
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
                                                                            B·
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
                                                                            c
      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
                                                                            D
      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
                                                                            E
      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           F
      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         G
       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.                                      ·               H
!052                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2016) I S.C.R.


 A           {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
 B     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.
 c
              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) ofsection 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            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
 F            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 -
 G            (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
 H
      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;"                                                                B

        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          c
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:                                       D

               "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
                                                                              E
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
                                                                              F
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        G
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.                                               ·

                                                                              H
1054                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2016] I S.C.R.


 A        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
 B
   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:
 c           "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
 D                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
 E          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:
 F                "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. "
 G          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
 H
ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD. v. E.S.I.                       1055
  CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

say, a casual employee. Thus Section 39(4) and Section 42(3)       A
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
                                                                   B
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     c
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
                                                                   D
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,         E
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. ·
                                                                   F
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        G
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.        H
1056                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2016] I S.C.R.


 A           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
 B
             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
 c           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.
              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
 E     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
 F     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,
 G     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),
 H
       ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD. v. E.S.I.                           1057
         CORPORATION & ORS. (ARUN MISHRA, J.]

security department, carpentry shop, personnel department and accounts A
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/
                                                                                B
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 c
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 D
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      E
 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    F
 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      G
 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     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.