REGIONAL DIRECTOR Vs. HARKANT G CHANIYARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the Employees State Insurance Court, Rajkot in E.S.I. Application No. 3 of 1988 dated 20.12.2007 whereby, the said application was allowed.

(2.) THE facts in brief leading rise to the filing of the present appeal are as under;

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the respective parties. After appreciating the entire evidence on record, the Court below has recorded a finding that both the entities, viz. Quality Machine Product and Quality Foundry were separate and independent inasmuch as their production process, books of accounts, etc., were different. Moreover, it has also not come out from the report of the Inspector of the appellant Corporation that the Partners of both the entities were common, or in that case, the production process of both the entities were dependent on each other and had common control / supervision. It is also a matter of record that the premises of the second entity was not inspected by the authority of the appellant Corporation. If the appellant Corporation had the desire to club the two Units, then they have to justify the move by assigning cogent and convincing reasons.