REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Vs. HARISIDH SPECIFIC FAMILY TRUST SOLE PROPRIETOR PATEL DETERGENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant - Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, has filed this appeal under Sec. 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act and challenge has been made therein to the order of the Employees' Insurance Court at Ahmedabad dated 26th April, 1996 passed in E.S.I. Application No. 64 of 1989.

(2.) The respondents filed application under Sec. 75 read with Sec. 76 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 before E.S.I. Court at Ahmedabad in which the appellant herein was one of the opponents. In this application, prayer has been made for quashing the notice and order passed by the officer of the Corporation. This application has been contested by the appellant by filing written statement. Vide Ex. 19 issues have been framed, and the evidence of the applicant-respondents' witnesses were recorded. The appellant has also examined its witnesses. The appellant herein, filed an application Ex. 67 in which prayer has been made for issuance of summons to the witness, i.e., person from Ahmedabad Electricity Company, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad. By this application, the appellant prayed for calling of the said witness to produce the documents as mentioned in the application. Some documents have also been produced by the appellant along with the said application. The Court issued witness summons on the said application but later on the respondents filed their objection Ex. 68 and contested the said application. Under the order impugned in this appeal, the E.S.I. Court has passed the order, which reads as under :

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Court below has misdirected itself on the basic question that every party has a right to summon the witness. The defence was taken which was an additional defence that the provisions of E.S.I. Act are applicable to the establishments of the respondent as all of its establishments are to be clubbed together. To prove that case, the witness summons has been sought for against the Ahmedabad Electricity Company and the Court below has committed an error in considering it to be a case where the appellant has tried to make out a new case.