Gujarat High Court
Shivam Enterprises vs Employees State Insuranc Corp on 30 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2379/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2379 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
=======================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=======================================
SHIVAM ENTERPRISES
Versus
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANC CORP.
=======================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH H SHAH(2142) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HEMANT S SHAH(756) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 30/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant - original applicant
under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948
(hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") against the judgment
and order dated 24.01.2003 passed by the Employees State
Insurance Court, Ahmedabad (hereafter be referred to as "the
ESI Court") in E.S.I. Application No. 78 of 1994 whereby the ESI
Court has rejected the application.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2379/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order, the appellant has preferred this appeal
raising the following substantial questions of law.
1. Whether the Hon'ble Employee State Insurance Court
was justified in finding that the provisions of
Employees State Insurance Act is applicable to the
present Appellant?
2. Whether the Hon'ble Employee State Insurance Court
is justified in finding that tube lights were fitted above
the tables on which cotton was being cut manually by
aid of scissors and that the appellant unit falls under
Section 2(12) of the Employees State Insurance Act as
though the number of persons employed were 12 and
the appellant is said to be carrying the manufacture
with the aid of power?
3. Whether the present appellant falls within the
definition of Factory within the ambit of Section 2(12)
of the Employees State Insurance Act?
4. Whether the Employees State Insurance Court has
erred in finding that the application of the present
appellant is legally untenable?
5. Whether the Employees State Insurance Court has
erred in not finding that there was no electric
connection in the name of the present appellant and,
therefore, the provisions of Act was not applicable?
3. Heard Mr.Darshit Thakkar, learned counsel for Mr.Ashish
Shah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
Mr.Hemant Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
at length. Perused the material available on record.
4. Mr.Darshit Thakkar, learned counsel for Mr.Ashish
Shah, learned counsel has submitted the same facts which are
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2379/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
narrated in the memo of appeal and has submitted that since the
ESI Court has, without considering the fact that the unit was
closed in 1991, therefore, the unit was not liable to pay any
contribution and even at the time of the inspection on
19.12.1991 the Inspector has recorded that he has found 13-14
tables lying there and employees were working where the tube
lights were fitted over the tables and on the basis of the electric
connection and the bills which were produced before the
Inspector, the Inspector has recorded that more than ten
employees were working at the time of inspection and, therefore,
on the basis of the inspection report, the respondent demanded
Rs.12,825/- as contribution from the appellant, which is not
proper. He has submitted that the finding recorded by the ESI
Court, on the basis of the inspection report, is illegal, unjust and
improper. He has submitted that the inspection report containing
the fact that there was electric light fitted on the each table and
he found 13-14 tables where the employees were working at the
time of inspection which was absolutely incorrect. He has also
submitted that there was no electric use on all these tables and
there was no electric connection was on each table and the
impugned judgment and order passed based upon the contents
of the inspection report is illegal. Over-and-above the aforesaid
contentions, Mr.Thakkar, learned counsel has submitted that the
present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned
judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Mr.Shah, learned counsel has submitted that the inspector
has visited the factory premises where he found such aspects as
mentioned in the report in presence of the partner of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2379/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
company and the inspection was carried out, which was signed
by the partner of the company and thus, the report made by the
Inspector was rightly considered by the ESI Court. He has
submitted that the ESI Court has not committed any error of law
and facts while rejecting the application. He has submitted that
from bare reading of the impugned judgment and order, it
appears that no substantial questions of law proposed by the
appellant in the present case. He has submitted that no
interference is required to be called for and the appeal being
meritless deserves to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the
respective parties and the evidence available on record and
perused the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the
ESI Court, after considering the averments and contention raised
by the appellant, recorded the findings in para 6 onward and
there is jurisdictional error committed by the ESI Court while
passing the impugned judgment and order. It is required to be
noted herein that the amount which is demanded by the
respondent - Corporation is only Rs.12,825/-, which is very petty
amount and thus, on the ground of smallness also, this Court has
not entertained the present appeal. Hence, the appeal being
meritless and and even on the ground of smallness amount, the
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Registry is directed to
transmit back the record and proceedings to the concerned Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2379/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending civil application stands disposed of accordingly.
Interim relief, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated
forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
