REGL DIR ESIC Vs. DECCAN STUDIOS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the ESI Corporation to challenge the order dated March 3, 1997 in esi Application No. 23 of 1988 filed by the respondent-applicant.

(2.) THE appellant-Corporation is represented by the learned counsel Smt. Geethadevi, whereas, the contesting respondent is represented by the learned counsel Sri N. Raghupathy. The respondent 2, the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, having been served with the notice had remained absent before Court. Therefore, I feel that it is appropriate for me to direct the learned additional Government Advocate Sri Ashok mensinakai who is present before Court to take notice for the said respondent and he had since done that before Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant smt. Geethadevi had taken me through the facts of the case and further the impugned order under challenge. She had argued that the respondent-employer did not adduce acceptable evidence before the El Court to dislodge the presumption available in favour of the Corporation under Section 45-A (2) that the esi contribution what was decided by it under section 45-A of the Act was legal. She had also pointed out that the respondent- employer did not enter into the witness-box even to disjodgg the statutory presumption available in favour of the Corporation under the above provision of law. Therefore, she submitted that the impugned order passed by the EI Court is liable to be set aside in its entirety, firstly, by allowing the instant appeal before this Court and secondly, by dismissing the cross-objection filed by the respondent-employer.