BALLAL MOTOR SERVICE HAMPANKATTA MANGALORE-575001. REP. BY ITS PARTNER K.V. BALLAL. NOW REP. IN THIS PROCEEDINGS BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION NO. 10. BINNY FIELDS BINNYPET BANGALORE-560023 AND ASST REGIONAL D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is a covered establishment. Respondents issued a show cause notice to the appellant on 15.09/10.1987 proposing; to determine Rs. 44.820/ - as the contribution on "omitted wages", that is for the period 31.01.1986 to 31.03.1987. The appellant submitted a reply dated 07.11.1987, wherein it denied any liability to pay the contribution as demanded. A further representation was submitted by the appellant to the respondent on 07.04.1988. The respondent -Corporation passed an order dated 13/19.04.1988, determining that the appellant is liable to pay Rs.44.820/ - towards the contribution on omitted wages". Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an application under Section 75 of the ESI Act, 1948, which was registered as application No. 7/1988. After enquiry the application was allowed and the matter was remitted to the respondent -Corporation which was questioned in M.F.A.No.26S2/2003 by the ESI Corporation. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside and the ESI Court was directed to reconsider the case on all aspects. The application was re -numbered as 35/1994. After the remand, no further evidence was adduced. Parties have addressed the arguments. The ESI Court has passed an order dated 18.01.2010, whereby, it allowed the application in part only to the extent of compensation paid to the legal heirs of the deceased employees. The application filed against other claims made by the respondent -Corporation was rejected. The corporation was set at liberty to recover the contribution from the applicant as demanded in Ex.A.2. excluding the compensation paid to the legal heirs of the deceased employees to the tune of Rs.4,704/ -. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this appeal.

(2.) SRI . K. Anandarama, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, the ESI Court has erred in rejecting the application in part. According to the learned counsel, there is wrong casting of burden on proof and the findings recorded are without any evidentiary support and hence is perverse. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is unsustainable.

(3.) I have perused the record.