MOTOR & GENERAL FINANCE LIMITED Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Ss. 114 and 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the appellant for reviewing the judgment dtd. 28/11/2025 in FAO 62/2018. The review petitioner, the appellant in the first appeal, was the petitioner before the Employees Insurance Court (the EIC). The appeal was filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment in ESI No. 72/16/05, whereby his petition filed under Sec. 75 of the ESI Act was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove its claims and its own evidence showed liability under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (the ESI Act). The appeal has been dismissed, holding that no substantial question of law arose under Sec. 82(2) of the ESI Act, and that the petitioner failed to prove that the ESI Act did not apply to them.

(2.) According to the review petitioner, there are errors apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment 28/11/2025, warranting review in interest of justice. There were material statutory amendments in Sec. 45A of the ESI Act, which barred the respondent from raising any contribution demand beyond five years. Under Regulation 32 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 (the ESI Regulation), the employer was required to maintain employee registers for five years only, rendering the 2011 demand for records illegal. The petitioner's application, being CM No. 33919/2019 under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, was not adjudicated. Reliance was placed on the dictum of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer 2024 (1) Apex Court Judgements (SC) 788 to state that an electronic record, as such is used as primary evidence under Sec. 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 (the Evidence Act) and that the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance with the conditions in Sec. 65-B of the Evidence Act.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner.