DEPUTY REGIONAL DIRECTOR Vs. TRADE LINKS ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against the Judgment in IC. No. 32 of 1990 of the E.I. Court, Alappuzha, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party. The respondent, the Trade Links Enterprises, M/s Trade Links and M/s Trade Link Agencies are functioning in the same premises. One Suryanarayanan is the Proprietor of M/s Trade Links. He is the Manager of M/s Trade Link Agency also. He is also the Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent. The total number of employees working in M/s Trade Links and Trade Link Agencies were more than 19. Trade Link were the importers and dealers of photographic equipments and allied goods. M/s Trade Link Agencies were dealers in audio visual products and photographic materials. Therefore the appellant is a covered establishment by clubbing the 3 establishments together.

(2.) The respondent challenged the above action of the appellant. The Employees Insurance Court held that the action of the appellant in clubbing together the establishments for purpose of coverage is unsustainable. Against the said decision of the E.I. Court, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party.

(3.) The case of the respondent herein is that the Trade Link Enterprises is a partnership firm engaged in the business of distribution of the products of Hindustan Photo Films. It is also the stockists and distributors of photographic poroducts, X - ray films and chemicals. There are 4 partners in the firm. The registered office of the firm is at Madras. There are no employees in the registered office and entire business is carried out ia Ernakulam. On the basis of the report of the Insurance Inspector, the appellant informed the respondent that it will come under the purview of the E.S.I. Scheme. The determination of such coverage, according to the respondent, was by treating two other establishments, namely, M/s Trade Links and M/s Trade Link Agencies. As per the respondent, Trade Links and Trade Link Agencies have nothing to do with the respondent and those are entirely two different establishments. By treating all the units together the appellant determined the coverage and informed the respondent herein to register the employees under the E.S.I. Scheme. After the assessment was made notice dated 23rd July 1990 was