KARNATAKA STATE CO OPERATIVE MARKETING FERATION Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 82 of the ESI act is directed against an Order made by the el Court at Bangalore whereby an application filed by the appellant under Section 75 of the act aforementioned has been dismissed and the appellant held liable to pay contribution of a sum of Rs. 7,02,106. 50 for the period between january 27, 1985 to March 31, 1988.

(2.) THE appellant is a Co-operative Society in which the State Government is a major share holder. The Society is engaged in the marketing of fertilizers and pesticides to farmers in the State of Karnataka. It has for that purpose established 31 branches all over the State. The administrative and marketing control over these branches is exercised by trie Head Office of the Society with the help of nearly 450 employees.

(3.) THE respondent-Corporation appears to have initiated proceedings in which the appellant-Society was called upon to pay the contribution in terms of the ESI Act. That demand was opposed by the appellant on the ground that it was not amenable to the provisions of the Act as the Society was not engaged in any manufacturing activity. The appellant also argued that it did not constitute a shop and that since none of the branches had employed more than twenty persons, no direction for payment of contribution could be issued. These contentions were overruled by the Corporation in terms of an Order dated december 7, 1998 holding that the appellant was a Shop hence amenable to Section 15 of the Act. That Order was followed by another order dated April 20, 1989 passed under section 45-A of the Act whereby an amount of rs. 7,02,106. 50 was provisionally determined as the contribution payable by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said two orders, the appellant filed an application under Section 75 of the Act before the EI Court at Bangalore. That application has been dismissed by the Court in terms of the Order impugned in this appeal and the demand raised against the appellant for the period January 27, 1985 to March 31, 1988 upheld. The present appeal assails the correctness of the said Order as noticed earlier.