M. SUBRAMANI Vs. ASSISTANT REGIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the employer challenging the order of the E.S.I.Court confirming the the order of the E.S.I.Corporation passed under Sec. 45-A of the E.S.I.Act.

(2.) According to the appellant/employer, he is running a small wood working shed where lathe turning, plaining and cutting are being carried out. There are no employees in the said Unit and one Shanmugam who is the relative of the employer is taking care of the Unit and he is receiving 40% out of the total income. The outside Carpenters used to bring their work on their own and get it plained in the machine belonging to the petitioner. Since there are no employees, the petitioner has not maintained any Attendance Register or Wage Register.

(3.) The E.S.I.Inspector had visited the petitioner Unit on 9/11/2006 and made some entry in English and asked the petitioner to sign it. Thereafter, no notice was served upon the petitioner for any personal hearing. Directly Sec. 45-A of E.S.I. Act order was passed directing the employer to pay a sum of Rs.16,920.00 towards contribution for the period between 9/11/2006 and 03/2007 of Rs.5,500.00 per month per employee by an order dtd. 12/11/2007. A recovery order was passed on 21/11/2007 directing the employers to deposit a sum of Rs.18,312.00 with interest. Since there are no employees with the petitioner, the employer had challenged the said order under Sec. 75 of the E.S.I.Act before the E.S.I.Court, Madurai.