In her order, Justice Dangre noted that the ESI Act, 1948, seeks to secure maintenance of health of an insured workman by recognising the right to medical benefit as a fundamental right under the Constitution.
It is intended to confer certain benefits upon the employee in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and to make provision for certain other benefits.
“Thus, the enactment is intended to operate as a beneficial piece of legislation to attain general welfare of the employees,” the judge held.
To categorise the BCCI as a shop, the judge adverted to the “systematic commercial profit making activity” of the Board, which has it’s source of income on different counts like holding of international tours, income from IPL, selling rights of broadcasting the cricket matches, sponsorship, sale of tickets, etc.
“The Board is admittedly involved in entertaining and carrying out systematic commercial activity and is engaged in providing services to public at large by engaging its employees, organizing events, promoting cricket as a source of entertainment and thereby collecting funds. It is also engaged in acquisition or purchase of movable or immovable assets, tangible or intangible and authorised to sale or transfer the same for achieving its objectives,” the judge noted further.
Therefore, the Court upheld the decision of the ESI court to hold that BCCI falls under the ambit of ESI Act.
Source: Barandbench
