[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hemajal Felt Finishing Pali vs Dy.Director Reg.Office,E.S.I.C.And ... on 13 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:8260]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1506/2008
Hemajal Felt Finishing, Pali through its proprietor Prithvi Singh
S/o Sh. Ganesh Singh, 682, Rajendra Nagar, Pali.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The Deputy Director Regional Office, Employees State
Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, Bhiwani Singh Road,
Jaipur.
2. Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan,
Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur.
3. The Manager, Local Office, Employees State Insurance
Corporation, Near Railway Post Office, Jodhpur Road, Pali.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prem Dayal Bohra
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Judgment
13/02/2026
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 82 of the
Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as
the Act of 1948), challenging the order dated 04.08.2008 passed
by the learned Employees State Insurance Court, Pali, in Civil
Misc. Case No. 11/2005, "Hemajal Felt Finishing, Pali vs.
Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors." whereby the
order passed under Section 45A of the Act of 1948, determining
the contribution to be paid by the employer, after adjusting the
amount already paid, was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that during the inspection of the
appellant's firm, which was covered under the Act of 1948 since its
inception, a demand letter was issued on 18.04.2005. The
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:27:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8260] (2 of 5) [CMA-1506/2008]
demand related to the ESIC contribution for the period from
27.03.2004 to 31.03.2004 and from 01.04.2004 to 30.09.2004, to
the tune of Rs. 21,402/-. A show cause notice was issued,
directing the appellant to remain present and show cause if he has
anything to say qua the demands raised. In spite of the date fixed,
the appellant did not appear, and thereafter, the order dated
06.06.2005 was passed under Section 45A of the Act of 1948,
whereby the demand for a sum of Rs. 21,402/- was confirmed,
giving all details of the contribution required to be paid, i.e., the
salary of 13 employees for the period in question and the
percentage of deduction for ESIC.
3. After passing of the order, the appellant submitted a reply on
16.06.2005, disputing the amount and stating that a sum of Rs.
7,143/- had already been deposited by him three days prior, i.e.,
on 13.06.2005. The employer, however, did not dispute the
number of employees engaged or the demand being outstanding.
4. The suit in question was thereafter filed under the provisions of
Section 75 of the Act of 1948, asserting that the appellant could
not appear earlier due to the ailment of his wife. It was further
asserted that in the reply dated 16.06.2005, the details of the
amount deposited were specified, emphasizing that only a sum of
Rs. 7,143/- remained outstanding, which was duly deposited later
on. He further asserted that the final order should have been
passed after adjusting the amount already deposited by the
appellant, and it was also asserted that an additional sum of Rs.
13,771/- had already been recovered from the appellant.
5. The respondent-department while filing a reply to the
above-mentioned plaint, denied the contents there of and asserted
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:27:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8260] (3 of 5) [CMA-1506/2008]
that after the inspection of premises of the appellant, it was found
that the contribution had not been paid, and thereafter notice was
issued to the appellant. The appellant failed to appear, and
therefore the order in question was passed. It was stated that
after considering the record, it was clear that the appellant had
engaged 13 employees, and the contribution for those 13
employees was due for the period in question.
6. The learned ESIC Court framed two issues for its
adjudication, which read as under:
ÞmHk; i{kksa ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij fuEu fookn fcUnq dk;e
fd;s x;s%&
(1) vk;k vof/k 27-3-04 ls 30-9-04 ds bZ-,l-vkbZ- ls lacaf/kr
vfHkys[k ds vfLrRo esa jgrs vizkFkhZ }kjk mDr vof/k dk rnFkZ vk/kkj
ij va"knku fu/kkZj.k mfpr o oS/k gS\
--izkFkhZ
(2) vuqrks'kAß
7. The appellant, in order to prove its case, examined himself
i.e. the proprietor Sh. Prithvi Singh as AW-1 and produced twelve
documents. The respondent-department, on the other hand,
examined D.D. Mathur as NAW-1 and produced nine documents.
The learned trial court thereafter proceeded to adjudicate the
matter and, by order dated 04.08.2008, dismissed the suit filed by
the appellant while deciding Issue Nos. 1 and 2 against the
appellant. Hence the present appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant asserted that the appellant
had submitted the entire record and, as per the record, no amount
was due to be paid. He further contended that the wife of the
appellant was ill at the relevant time and, therefore, the appellant
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:27:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8260] (4 of 5) [CMA-1506/2008]
could not appear before the respondent post issuance of the show
cause notice. The respondents, rather than waiting, had
straightaway proceeded to pass the order under Section 45A of
the Act of 1948, which per se is illegal.
9. Learned counsel further asserted that the learned trial court
failed to consider the fact that post passing of the order, the entire
contribution due i.e. Rs. 7,143/-, was deposited. Thus, it was
asserted that the due amount paid has not at all been considered
by the learned trial Court, nor the record has been considered
while passing the order.
10. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent, however, this
Court has considered the entire record of the case as well as
arguments of the counsel for appellant.
11. As far as the appeal under Section 82 is concerned, needless
to emphasize that the same shall lie to the High Court only on a
substantial question of law. In the present case, after considering
the facts and record, it is clear that the appellant himself admitted
that 13 employees were working under him and did not dispute
the fact of inspection being undertaken. No question in this regard
was raised in the cross-examination to the officer of the
respondent-department by the appellant. Furthermore, the record
produced by the department established the fact of 13 employees
working under the appellant during the relevant period. This,
coupled with the notice issued, wherein the entire calculation due
was specified, which was not disputed by the appellant, shows
that the contribution was not paid at the relevant time by the
appellant. The subsequent payment of Rs. 7,143/- (already
adjusted by the learned trial court) is of no avail, as the appellant
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:27:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8260] (5 of 5) [CMA-1506/2008]
failed to place anything on record to show on what basis the
calculation was made, particularly when the salary of Rs. 4,125/-
per employee was admitted by the appellant himself. The learned
trial court considered the entire record and thereafter passed the
order in question, modifying the adjudication under Section 45A of
the Act of 1948 by adjusting the amount of Rs. 7,143/- already
paid by the appellant.
12. In view of the above, the trial court had already granted the
benefit of adjustment to the appellant, and the appellant has
failed to show that any substantial question of law is involved in
the present appeal.
13. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.
14. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
11-raoof khan/-
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:27:45 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
