Employees State Insurance Cor vs Messers Aparajit Health Care ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5080 Bom

2607 FA  185/2006                             1                        Judgment


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                 NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR.


                        FIRST APPEAL NO. 185/2006 


Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Having its Sub-Regional Office at
Panchdeep Bhawan, Ganeshpeth, 
Nagpur.                                                 APPELLANT

                                .....VERSUS.....

Messers Aparajit Health Care Products,
A Partnership Firm having its
business premises at U-154, MIDC,
Nagpur and the office at Nav Prabhat,
27, Central Bazar Road, Ramdaspeth,
Nagpur.                                                  RESPONDE NT
                                                                     


Mrs. B.P. Maldhure, counsel for appellant.
Shri D.N. Kukday, counsel for respondent.


                 CORAM  : DR. SMT. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

               DATE     : JULY 26, 2017.



ORAL JUDGMENT :  

Heard learned counsel for appellant and respondent.

2] At the time of admission of appeal, following

substantial question of law was framed.

2607 FA 185/2006 2 Judgment

"Whether the employees who have been working on deputation at the time of inspection would be considered for the purpose of coverage of establishment of the respondent under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948?"

3] At the time of final hearing, learned counsel for

respondent points out to the letter dated 23/09/1999 produced on

record at Exh.28/3, which is not considered by the trial court. As

per the said letter, the two employees by name, Alok Nagar and P.

Tewari had been working with Superior Air Products Limited in

September-1997 and October-1997. It is further certified that both

of them were getting salary beyond Rs.6,500/- per month, so they

were not covered under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for

short, "ESI Act").

4] In view of this letter, it is clear that at the time of

inspection only 9 employees, who can be called as covered under

the ESI Act, were found at the factory premises. Therefore, there

cannot be any breach and hence on factual aspects, it is not

necessary to enter into the substantial question of law, which is

framed at the time of admission of this appeal.

 2607 FA  185/2006                                3                          Judgment




5]              Needless   to   state   that,   as   and   when   such   substantial 

question of law arises, it will be decided, but for the purpose of

present appeal, as it is not necessary to enter into that substantial

question of law, this appeal holds no merits and hence stands

dismissed.

JUDGE

Yenurkar