MANAGER EMPLOYEES Vs. SEEPATHAM CHAND CHORDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed by the Manager, Employees state Insurance Corporation, Hosur, Dharmapuri District against the judgment of acquittal by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Hosur, on 5. 8. 1988 in C. C. No. 274 of 1986 on his file.

(2.) THE facts which have given rise to the present appeal are briefly as follows: THE appellant/ the Manager, Employees state Insurance corporation, Hosur, Dharmapuri district, filed a complaint before the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hosur, under Sec. 85-A of the Employees State insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the act) alleging that as per resolution passed on 14. 8. 1958 the appellant/ complainant had powers to inspect the factories. At door Nos. A-4 and A-5, SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Hosur, the first respondent/first accused is conducting a factory with the name M/s. Mohan conductors as the proprietor. THE second respondent/ second accused is the manager of the said factory. THE factory of the respondent is covered by the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act. As per Sec. 45-A of the Act the respondents have to collect the contribution from the labourers working in their factory and along with the contribution of the management, they should deposit the same to the account of the Employees State Insurance Fund. But the respondents have not deposited the contribution amount for the period from 24. 6. 1985 to 30. 6. 1985, which came to Rs. 12,875. 50, even after expiry of the due date. Even though the respondents were instructed to pay the said amount within fifteen days from 27. 5. 1985, they have not done so. Hence, they are liable to be punishable under Secs. 85-A and 85 (i) of the Act.

(3.) RE. point: The learned counsel for the appellant forcibly contended before this Court that the trial Magistrate has grievously erred in acquitting the accused on untenable grounds and the trial Magistrate was not correct in holding the complainant has not proved 10 and more employees were working in the factory. The conclusion of the learned trial Magistrate the inspector ought to have seized the attendance registers is erroneous, as under the Act, the Inspector is not empowered to seize any document. It was also argued the learned trial Magistrate has wrongly computed the period of limitation whereas the complaint as filed is well within the time. Ultimately, he argued that the judgment of the trial court acquitting the respondents/ accused is manifest errors perverse and reasonably not a possible view.