GLASSCO Vs. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant in I.C.9/2007 of the Employees' Insurance Court, Alappuzha has come up in appeal challenging the judgment dated 10.12.2010 passed by the court below. The case before the court below was filed by the appellant herein seeking a declaration that Ext.P1 notice imposing coverage of the establishment of the appellant under Section 2(12) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the E.S.I. Act') with effect from 01.04.2006, is unsustainable and that the appellant is not bound to comply with the provisions of the E.S.I.Act.

(2.) The case of the appellant is that the establishment of the appellant is a partnership firm of which one T.K.Varghese is the managing partner. The said firm is a small scale industrial establishment engaged in the business of glass processing and designing, the factory of which is located at Kalamassery. It has an administrative office 8 kms. away, at Mamangalam, Ernakulam. The case of the appellant is that the appellant had never engaged 10 or more employees coverable under the E.S.I. Act on any day. It is alleged that two inspectors of the ESI Corporation had visited the said establishment at Kalamassery on 20.04.2006. In the absence of PW1 Manager, who was all along present at the administrative office Mamangalam, the inspectors allegedly verified the available registers at Kalamassery and collected some evidence. They allegedly ascertained the salary particulars of those persons employed at Kalamassery over the phone from PW2, staff member at the administrative office at Mamangalam. Allegedly on the information passed on by PW2, they prepared a visit note. By the time PW1 had reached there, the inspection was over and they issued a copy of the visit note to PW1 on obtaining his acknowledgment. It is the case of the appellant that the entire contents of the visit note regarding the wages of the employees of the factory are not correct to facts, and the wages included therein represent only the basic wages in which other allowances like DA, HRA etc. are not included.

(3.) On the basis of the visit report, the ESI Corporation has gone to the extent of finding that the establishment is coverable under the ESI Act and thereby Ext.P1 was issued. It seems that, on the side of appellant, PWs.1 to 3 were examined before the court below, and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. On the side of respondent, DW1 was marked and Exts.D1 to D5 were marked. The court below has not accepted the evidence tendered by PWs.1 to 3 and also the contents of documents marked as Exts.P1 to P9 by assigning more than one reasons.