CHENNAI COTTONS Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 07.04.2017 passed in E.I.O.P.No.95 of 2006 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

(2.) Though the appellant has raised three substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant confined by stating that only question of law to be considered by this Court is that whether the trial Court erred in passing an order in a cryptic and non-speaking manner.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant made a submission that the appellant factory closed its operations from 01.11.1992 and the said factum was not considered by the authorities as well as by the ESI Court. However, closure of the establishment is a factual aspect to be considered with reference to the documents. If at all, the appellant closed the business, it is for him to establish the same by filing documents and adducing evidences. However, the ESI Court made a categorical finding that the petitioner has not proved the fact that factory was closed its operation on 01.11.1992 in a satisfactory manner. In the absence of any proof to establish the closure, the ESI Court is right in not considering the case of the appellant. In respect of closure of business, more specifically, when the business is covered under the ESI Act, is to be established through an acceptable evidence. A mere statement in this regard is insufficient to arrive a conclusion. The findings of the ESI Court reveals that the appellant did not intimate the respondent/Corporation about the closure of business or changes in the number of workmen. Even before the ESI Court also, the appellant has not established that the business was closed its operations from 01.11.1992 by producing reliable evidence Exs.P1 to P13 do not contain any evidence to show that the business of the petitioner was closed on 01.11.1992. Non-operation of Bank operation is insufficient to establish the closure of the business. The appellant has obtained a license under the Factories Act to run the factory as the factory involved in Garment Manufacture. When it was closed, then all appropriate steps are to be taken and at least before the ESI Court, the appellant would have produced some document to establish the same. However, the ESI Court, in categorical terms, held that the appellant had not produced any evidence to show that that it had obtained license or to show that it has surrendered after October 1992. Thus, the ESI Court could not able to arrive a conclusion that the appellant company closed its operations on 01.11.1992. The findings in this regard are unambiguous and the same are extracted hereunder: