KUMBAKONAM MILK SUPPLY COOPERATIVE SOCIETY Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kumbakonam Milk Supply Cooperative Society through its Secretary, aggrieved by the order dated 28-02-1994, made in E.S.I.O.P.No. 33/87 on the file of the District Judge, Thanjavur, has filed the above appeal under Section 82 (2) of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.

(2.) According to the appellant, it is a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and their main object is to purchase milk from its members and to sell the same. The said work was being done for the last 45 years. While so, on 14-5-85, a memo was issued claiming Rs.87,101/- towards E.S.I. contribution for the period between 1-4-79 and 31-12-84. Again, on 26-5-86 it received another notice demanding Rs.1,11,488.40 towards E.S.I. contribution. It is further stated that on receipt of the said notices, the appellant sent a reply stating that it is a society and not an industry, that no manufacturing process is being carried out and that the persons working in the society are not employees within the meaning of Section 2 (9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It is further stated that since their explanation was not satisfactory, the society filed E.S.I.O.P.No.33/87 before the District Court under Section 75 (1) of the Act. Before the District Court, the Accountant of the Society was examined as P.W.1 and Exs. P-1 to P-11 were marked in support of their claim. On the side of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, their Inspectors were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and Exs. R-1 to R-4 marked in support of their defence. The learned District Judge, after framing necessary issues and after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, and after holding that the appellant society is an organisation under the Act, and hence it is liable to pay its contribution, dismissed the O.P., filed by the society. The District Court also permitted the society to approach the Corporation for modification of the quantum, if there is any variation in the contribution. Questioning the said award, the society has preferred the above appeal.

(3.) Heard Mr. T. Susindran, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G. Desappan for respondent.