VIJAY NARAIN Vs. ESIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is filed by the appellant against the order of the Senior Sub-Judge in Suit no. ESIC-30/84, holding that the appellant was liable to pay arrears of provident fund contribution and interest from September 1978 to April 1980.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant Form 01 under Reg. 10-B of the Act was sent by him to the Corporation, but they were never allotted any code number. It is also contended by the appellant that his employees never actually received the benefit of the Act under Section 46, such as payment in case of sickness, periodical payments in case of disablement, etc. The appellant also submits that they had stopped the business from 1980 itself and the appellants are unable to make any payment of the past arrears. The learned Sub-Judge has rejected all the submissions of the appellant. The learned Sub-Judge further held that the appellants were liable to make over the arrears of contribution for the said period. However, the learned Sub-judge held that the dispute was settled between the parties and a sum of Rs. 10,835. 60 plus the interest at 6% per annum w. e. f. 1-5-1980 was payable by the appellant. The learned Sub-Judge also granted payment by monthly installments of Rs. 3,000 to the appellants.

(3.) BEFORE me the same submissions were made by the counsel for the appellant. There is, no evidence on record to show that the appellant had at any time informed of the closing of business to the Corporation in 1980, but even assuming that such communication was sent, the appellants cannot avoid their liability for the arrears of the contribution. So also there is no substance in the submission that because the code number was not given by the Corporation the appellants were not liable to make any contribution. The liability under the law to make contribution is mandatory for every factory. Factory is defined in Section 2 (12) to mean "any premises including precincts thereof whereon 20 or more persons are employed or were employed for wages on any day of preceding 12 months and in any part of which manufacturing process is being carried out with the aid of power or is ordinarily so carried on. . . . . . ". Section 2-A requires that every factory or establishment to which the Act applies shall be registered within such time and in such manner as may be specified in regulations made in this behalf. Regulation 10-B framed under the Act provides that on registration a code number shall be assigned to each factory or establishment. As the learned Sub-Judge has pointed out this provision has been made only for the convenience of administration and the liability cannot be avoided on the ground that no code number was given (1980 Labour and Industrial Cases p. 100 ). Another submission of the counsel for the petitioner, viz. , that the benefits under the Act were not , in fact, enjoyed by the employees is without any merit. Section 46 provides for various benefits by way of social insurance to the workmen and their families in case of sickness, disability, death, medical treatment, pregnancy and miscarriage of women employees and similar benefits to the family of the insured person. The scheme of social insurance under the Act is a beneficent provision for the welfare of workmen as directed by the Directive Principles of the Constitution. The scheme of the Act is that the contributions made by the employees as well as the management shall be deposited in a sort of revolving fund available for giving benefits to the workmen generally. It may be that during the short period in which the employer was liable to make the contribution no workman has fallen sick or died or suffered any disability. The workmen of the specific factory or the establishment thus may npt have actually availed of the benefits of social insurance under the Act. But that does not mean that the establishment or factory can avoid payment of arrears of contribution under law. The revolving fund is available for any workmen working in any factory or establishment covered under the Act, (1981 Labour and Industrial Cases, p. 109 ).