The Supreme Court has held that the actions of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) are of business nature and could also be referred to as a “shop” for the aim of attracting the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance Act.
The high court docket noticed that the ESI Act is a welfare legislation enacted by the Center and a slender which means shouldn’t be connected to the phrases used within the Act because it gives insurance coverage to the staff of the coated institutions in opposition to numerous dangers to their life, well being and properly being. Wants to – is and blames the employer.
A bench of Justices MR Shah and PS Narasimha noticed that no error has been dedicated by the ESI Court and/or the High Court in contemplating and contemplating the BCCI as a “shop” for the applicability of the ESI Act.
“Keeping in view the systematic actions being carried out by the BCCI, particularly the sale of tickets for cricket matches; offering leisure; offering companies for a worth; The proceeds from worldwide excursions and the Indian Premier League, the ESI Court in addition to the High Court, have rightly concluded that the BCCI is carrying on systematic financial industrial actions and due to this fact, the BCCI may be mentioned to be underneath the ESI Act. ‘store’ for the aim of drawing up the provisions,” the bench mentioned.
The high court docket was coping with the query whether or not the BCCI may be referred to as a “shop” as per the notification dated September 18, 1978, and whether or not the provisions of the ESI Act could be relevant to the BCCI.
The Bombay High Court had held that BCCI comes throughout the which means of “shop” by way of notification dated 18 September 1978 issued by the Government of Maharashtra underneath the provisions of Section 1(5) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948.
The high court docket noticed that the phrase “shop” shouldn’t be understood and interpreted within the conventional sense as it will not serve the aim of the ESI Act.
It mentioned {that a} wider which means could also be assigned to the phrase “shop” for the needs of the ESI Act.
The apex court docket, on behalf of the BCCI, mentioned that its principal exercise is to encourage cricket/sports activities and, due to this fact, it shouldn’t be introduced throughout the definition of “shop” for the needs of invoking the ESI Act.
“It additionally must be famous that whereas doing so, the High Court has additionally taken under consideration the related clauses of the Memorandum of Association of the BCCI to come back to the conclusion that the actions of the BCCI may be termed as systematic industrial. Activities offering leisure by promoting tickets and so on. The Memorandum of Association must be thought-about holistically.
“In view of the above and for the explanations said above, we don’t see any motive to intervene with the judgment and order handed by the High Court in addition to the ESI Court. We, due to this fact, absolutely agree with the view of the High Court. The particular go away petitions are accordingly dismissed,” the bench mentioned.
With inputs from TheIndianEXPRESS
