M/S.Nagpur Golden Transport vs Employees State Insurance Corpn.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2498 Del

                                                       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

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

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.