Jharkhand High Court
The Regional Director vs Md. Javed Alam on 30 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:21001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Misc. Appeal No. 153 of 2017
----
1.The Regional Director, E.S.I.Corporation, Regional Office, Namkum, P.O.,
P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi
2.The Insurance Inspector, Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Hirapur Durga Mandir Road, P.O., P.S. and District Dhanbad
Both represented through Dy. Director Legal, Rajendra Tudu, son of
late Nankeshwar Tudu resident of H/o Smt. Binapani Chakraborty, P.O.-
Kantatoli, P.S. Lower Bazar, 7th Lane Netaji Nagar, Kantatoli, District Ranchi
-834001 ..... Opposite Parties/ Appellants
-- Versus --
Md. Javed Alam, son of late Md. Siddique, Proprietor, New Stylo Tailor,
Verma Mansion, P.O, P.S. and District -Dhanbad
..... Applicant/ Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) :- Mr. Sidharth Sudhansu, Advocate
----
09/30.07.2025 This appeal has been preferred under Section 82(2) of the Employees'
State Insurance Act, 1948 challenging the judgment dated 26.02.2016 passed
by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Employees' State Insurance
Court, Dhanbad.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the inspection was made
under Section 40 of the said Act and it was found that Stylo Tailor at Bankmore,
Dhanbad is coming within the provisions under the Employees' State Insurance
Act and thereafter the notice has been issued. It has been further contested by
inclusion of the establishment was challenged before the leaned labour court
under Section 75(1)(g) of the said Act on the ground that the inspection was
-1- Misc. Appeal No.153 of 2017
2025:JHHC:21001
made with regard to Stylo Tailor whereas the applicant was the proprietor of
New Stylo Tailor. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of
that, there is law point involved in the present appeal and as such, this appeal
may be decided in terms of the law points. He further submits that the learned
court has erred in deciding the issue as to whether the said Md. Javed Alam is
the proprietor of Stylo Tailor as well as New Stylo Tailor or not? On this ground,
he submits that the learned court has given liberty to proceed against the
proprietor of Stylo Tailor. He further submits that the bar has been made by the
impugned judgment not to disturb Md. Javed Alam, however, that person is the
proprietor of both the firms and in view of that, it is the hindrance in proceeding
against Stylo Tailor. He submits in view of that the said judgment may kindly be
set aside.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent submits that
the learned Presiding officer, Labour Court has given the liberty to proceed
against the proprietor of Stylo Tailor and it is the duty of officer of the
Employees' State Insurance Corporation to find out who is the proprietor of
Stylo Tailor.
4. It is an admitted position that the proceeding has been initiated against
Stylo Tailor and it has been contended by the sole respondent before the
learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad that he is the owner of New
Stylo Tailor and not of Stylo Tailor and in view of that the learned court has
been pleased to set aside all the notices and given liberty to the appellants
herein to proceed against the proprietor of Stylo Tailor and not to harash Md.
Javed Alam. The liberty is also provided by the learned ESIC court to proceed
against the proprietor of Stylo Tailor. The apprehension of the appellants herein
with regard not to proceed against Md. Javed Alam as he is the proprietor of
both the firms, appears to be a misconceived one. If Md. Javed Alam is the
proprietor of both the firms, the ESIC can proceed against Md. Javed Alam
-2- Misc. Appeal No.153 of 2017
2025:JHHC:21001
being the proprietor of Stylo Tailor and that liberty is already provided by the
learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in the said case and admitted
position is that the notice has been issued against the Stylo Tailor. If the notice
was not to the New Stylo Tailor, there was no requirement to challenge the
same before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court by the proprietor of
New Stylo Tailor.
5. With the above clarification, this appeal is disposed of.
6. Let trial court records be sent back to learned court concerned forthwith.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
-3- Misc. Appeal No.153 of 2017
