UNREPORTABLE
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO NO. 283/1987
Date of Decision: May 10, 2010
M/S.NAGPUR GOLDEN TRANSPORT ............Appellant
through Mr. B R Madan, Advocate
versus
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN..... Respondent
through none
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA
1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? No
REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of Shri P K Dham, Judge, E.S.I. Court, Delhi dated October 5, 1987. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the trial Judge has held that the demand of Rs. 47,834.92P raised by the Employees State Insurance Corporation against the appellant herein was justified. Aggrieved by the order so passed, the appellant has come to this Court. Unfortunately, the trial Court record got destroyed in a fire that broke out in the Record Room (Civil), Tis Hazari Courts on March 15-16, 1996. In this view of the matter, this Court does not have the benefit of the evidence led before the trial court and will have to solely rely on the impugned FAO No.283/1987 Page 1 of 3 judgment passed by the trial Judge in order to arrive at a finding this way or that way.
A perusal of the impugned judgment goes to show that the appellant is a firm engaged in the transport of goods and has its branches in number of states. On March 8, 1985, the Deputy Regional Director issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why assessment under Section 45A be not made for the period June, 1979 to May, 1983 for not making contribution of its employees employed in the branches. The appellant, it appears, took the plea that the branches were employing less than 20 persons and were working independently and hence, no notice could be issued to it in relation to its branch offices where the employees working were less than 20. The trial Judge has rejected the plea so taken on the ground that one of the partners of the appellant appeared as PW-1 and in his cross-examination, he admitted that the Head Office of the appellant used to receive the balance-sheets from all the branches and used to prepare one consolidated balance-sheet. He further admitted that the firm paid for all the losses of the branches. As per the trial Judge, the fact that the Delhi office and the branch offices have one single account and the profits and losses of all the branches were paid by the Head Office was sufficient to hold that the branches and Head Office were not independent of each other and were not working as separate units.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant before me that the employees of one branch were not liable to be transferred to another branch and that due notice of this fact was not taken by the FAO No.283/1987 Page 2 of 3 trial Judge. There is nothing in the impugned judgment to indicate that any evidence was led by the appellant to show that the employees of one branch could not be transferred to another branch. In the absence of any such evidence, I see no reason to disturb the finding of the trial Judge which is based on the fact that as one common balance sheet was prepared in respect of all the branches and the Head Office and, the profits and losses of all the branches were paid by the Head Office, the branches could not be treated as independent units.
For what has been noticed above, I find no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.
REKHA SHARMA, J.
MAY 10, 2010 PC.
FAO No.283/1987 Page 3 of 3