The Joint Regional Director ... vs M/S Saggu Industries Wanjara ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1514 Bom

     fa751.04.J.odt                                                                                                                1/3



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                                                
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                                                 
                                       FIRST APPEAL NO.751 OF 2004

               The Joint Regional Director,
               Sub Regional Office, 
               Employees State Insurance 




                                                                                
               Corporation, Panchdeep Bhavan,
               Ganeshpeth, Nagpur - 48.                                                      ....... APPELLANT

                                                ...V E R S U S...




                                                            
              M/s. Saggu Indutries,ig
              Wanjara Layout, Pili Nadi,
              Kamptee Road, Nagpur - 440 026
              through its Partner Shri Balbinder
                                 
              Singh Saggu, Aged - Major,
              Occ: Business, R/o Kamptee Road,
              Nagpur - 440 026.                                           ....... RESPONDENT
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      

              Mrs. B.P. Maldhure, Advocate for Appellant.
              Shri A.P. Wachasunder, Advocate for Respondent.
   



     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          CORAM:  R.K. DESHPANDE, J. 

th APRIL, 2016.

                          DATE:      13





     ORAL JUDGMENT





     1]                   The   challenge   in   this   appeal   is   to   the   order   dated

21.09.2004 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court at Nagpur on

the Application No.12 of 1992 setting aside the order passed by the

appellant - Corporation on 08.05.1991 calling upon the respondent to

pay the contribution totalling to Rs.16,341/- for the period from

13.08.1988 to 30.09.1990 along with interest of Rs.1240/- upto

fa751.04.J.odt 2/3

31.03.1991. The Employees State Insurance Court has recorded the

finding that the appellant - Corporation has not establish that 10 or

more employees were working in the establishment of the respondent on

the date of inspection i.e. 19.06.1990. The order passed under Section

45-A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 on 08.05.1991 is set

aside.

2] With the assistance of the learned counsels appearing for the

parties, I have gone through the record and proceedings. The reliance

has been placed by the appellant solely upon the Inspection Report dated

19.06.1990 and the order dated 08.05.1991 passed on that basis under

Section 45-A of the said Act. Neither in the Inspection Report nor in the

said order I find the names of identifiable persons who were working in

the establishment of the respondent on 19.06.1990. The Inspector, who

visited the establishment of the respondent should have noted down the

names of 10 or more persons found to be working in the premises of the

respondent on the date of inspection. The employees so working could

have been identified from the employer or the agency through which the

employees were engaged in the premises of the respondent. The case of

the respondent is that the certain Security Guard from another agency

i.e. Bombay Intelligence Security (India) Limited were employed on the

establishment of the respondent and the said security agency has

registered those employees with the appellant - Corporation for the

fa751.04.J.odt 3/3

purposes of payment of E.S.I. contribution. Certainly, it is not possible to

verify in the absence of the names of employees being recorded in the

Inspection Report or in the order impugned.

3] In view of this, no substantial questions of law arises for

consideration by this Court in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

                                        ig                                             JUDGE
                                      
    NSN