Employees' State Insurance vs M/S. Sudarsan Foods
2026 Latest Caselaw 725 Ori

Orissa High Court

Employees' State Insurance vs M/S. Sudarsan Foods on 29 January, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                                                       Signature Not Verified
                                                                       Digitally Signed
                                                                       Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
                                                                       Reason: Authentication
                                                                       Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
                                                                       Date: 02-Feb-2026 16:58:56




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                  F.A.O No.61 of 2012

              Employees' State Insurance         ....                 Appellant (s)
              Corporation, Bhubaneswar &
              Anr..
                                                       Mr. Purnendu Pr. Ray, Adv.

                                           -versus-



              M/s. Sudarsan Foods, Cuttack.     ....                 Respondent (s)

Mr. Rashmi Ranjan Dash, Adv

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER

11. 29.01.2026 (I.A. No.55 of 2026 arising out of FAO No.61 of 2012)

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. This I.A. has been filed by the Appellants for modification/

correction of the judgment dated 24.12.2025 passed in FAO No.61

of 2012.

3. Heard.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellants/ Petitioners submits that as

there have been some typographical errors in the aforesaid

judgment, the same may be corrected.

5. It is apparent from the aforesaid judgment that in the 1st paragraph

of the aforesaid judgment the date of passing of the impugned

judgment has wrongly been mentioned as "14.11.2021" instead of

"14.11.2011". Further, the case number of the impugned judgment

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

has wrongly been mentioned as "ESI Misc. Case No.3 of 2022"

instead of "ESI Misc. Case No.3 of 2001 and ESI Misc. Case No.3 of

2002". It is also pointed out that there are some typographical

errors in the submissions part of the Respondent i.e. from

paragraph Nos.8 to 12 of the aforesaid judgment.

6. Hence, the date of passing of the impugned judgment wrongly

mentioned in the 1st paragraph of the aforesaid judgment as

"14.11.2021" be read as "14.11.2011" hereinafter. Further, the case

number of the impugned judgment wrongly mentioned as "ESI

Misc. Case No.3 of 2022" be read as "ESI Misc. Case No.3 of 2001

and ESI Misc. Case No.3 of 2002" hereinafter. Likewise, the

contents wrongly mentioned in Paragraph Nos.8 to 12 of the

aforesaid judgment are substituted and the following contents are

inserted and be read as Paragraph Nos.8 to 12 in place of those

Paragraphs containing wrong contents hereinafter:

"8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that, M/S General Food Corporation, a Partnership Firm was covered under the Act, which was dissolved on 31.03.1992 and the Respondent M/S Sudarsan Foods, a Proprietorship Firm carried on its manufacturing process with the aid of Power with effect from 17.01.1992 in the same premises by employing less than ten regular persons for wages and not continuation of M/S General Food Corporation.

9. It is further contended that, the Judgment dated 14.11.2011 is a well reasoned and well considered decision rendered upon due appreciation of evidence and correct interpretation of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The findings therein are pure finding of facts based on evidence and cannot be interfered in this Appeal, as the Appellate Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

10. The Respondent further submits that, the entire argument of the Appellants rests on assumptions that, the Respondent- Establishment is covered under Section-2(12) read with Section- 1(6) of the Act and the initial burden squarely lies on the Corporation to prove that the statutory conditions for coverage are satisfied.

11. It is also urged that, the allegations of the Appellants that, M/S Sudarsan Foods is a continuations of M/S general Food Corporation is wholly misconceived. The dissolution Deed dated 31.03.1992 was duly executed and registered, showing General Food Corporation ceased to exist upon such dissolution and the business carried on by any former partner in his individual capacity is a distinct legal entity.

12. Lastly, the learned Counsel emphasizes that the Corporation sought to include casual labourers, such as massions, sweepers and watchmen etc, to artificially in fate the number of employees, whereas the evidence on record establish that the Respondent employed less than ten regular workers in all the relevant times."

7. All other parts of the aforesaid judgment remain unaltered. This

order shall form a part of the judgment dated 24.12.2025 passed in

FAO No.61 of 2012.

8. Accordingly, this I.A. and the F.A.O. are disposed of.

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge B.Jhankar