SRINIDHI SILKS AND TEXTILES SHIMOGA Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant against the order dated 11-2-2000 passed in ESI Application No. 1 of 1995 by the Judge, ESI court, Bangalore dismissing the application filed under Section 75 of the employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short, 'the Act')-

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows.-The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of sale of silk sarees and textiles. The appellant seeks to challenge the order of the esi Court dismissing the application of the appellant under Section 75 of the Act. It was the appellant's case that the appellant's unit M/s. Srinidhi Silks and Textiles, M/s. Srinidhi Fashions dealing in readymade clothes and M/s. Srinidhi Saree Sadan dealing in sarees, yet another partnership firm, are three independent units and do not have connection with each other, there is no transferability of employees from one establishment to another and that there is no unity of accounts, etc. , and hence, it was not permissible for the ESI Corporation to hold that the appellant was liable to comply with the provisions of the Act as though all three units are one and that there could not be any order determining any alleged contribution to be made by the appellant.

(3.) THE respondent-Corporation after having issued show-cause notices dated 8-11-1993 and 23-2-1995 had passed an order dated 1-4-1995 calling upon the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 19,724/- being the contribution payable during the period 1-8-1994 to 31-11-1994. This order was challenged by the appellant in Application No. 1 of 1995 before the ESI Court. The same was disposed of holding that the appellant was covered under the Act. The same was challenged before this Court in M. F. A. No. 239 of 1998 and this Court has set aside the order passed by the ESI Court and remitted the matter for fresh hearing. The present order under challenge is the order passed by the esi Court dated 11-2-2000 after such remand. The ESI Court upon consideration of the material sought to be produced upon remand has found as a fact that the said documents were available with the appellant at the time of inspection and even if for some reason the same was not available, the appellant had ample opportunity to produce it at the time of hearing before the Court in the first instance. The appellant not having done so, the Court has doubted the veracity of the documents sought to be produced, namely, certain accounts books, etc. , and has accordingly rejected the application. It is this order, which is under challenge before me. 3-A. The appellant has framed following substantial questions of law for consideration: (i) Whether the Court below was justified by holding that the appellant establishment is coverable under the ESI Act overlooking the documents produced by the appellant in the form of separate wage and attendance register, separate certificates issued under the Karnataka Shops and commercial Establishments Act, 1961, separate income-tax assessment, separate sales tax assessment, separate banking account, separate registered partnership deed, separate account books, bill books, etc. "? (ii) Whether the Court below was right in upholding coverage of the establishment even though the ESI Inspector who conducted inspection did not conduct any mahazar? (iii) Whether the Court below was right in upholding the order passed by the respondent in covering the establishment without giving any opportunity to the applicant? (iv) Whether the findings of the Court below is contrary to the judgment as in Employees' State Insurance Corporation v karnataka Asbestos Cement Products? (v) Whether the Court below is right in holding that all three units are one and the same and therefore, provisions of the act are applicable to them comprehensively? (vi) Whether the Court below is right in holding that the petitioner had employed 20 persons as on date of coverage by clubbing the employment strength of all three units?