DESSAI METAL WORKS Vs. ESIC AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under the Employees' State Insurance Act. 1948, against the order dated July 12, 1988, in Application No. EIC/5 of 1985 which was taken by the appellants under Section 75 of the Act. The challenges available for an appeal, as Section 82 itself indicates, are highly of a limited nature-only when the matter involves a substantial question of law.

(2.) Before I come to the various challenges, it is advantageous to set out the story of the matter. The appellants are a registered partnership firm of which Dr. Sulokshana Dessai (A.W. - 1) is said to be the managing director-partner. It is common ground that the firm has got some quarry for extraction of basaltic stones in a village called Pilliem in Sanguem Taluka. After the extraction operation, the boulders are carried to another village called Sal Curti in Ponda Taluka, where with the use of electric power the boulders are broken into smaller sizes to be sold as concrete metal for the use of construction. On November 27, 1981, the Inspector under the Act, Shri Nair (R.W. - 1) inspected the premises at Sal Curti; called for information from one Gopal Rama Kudvekar (A.W. - 2) and, accordingly, Form O-1 was obtained. Based upon the disclosures made therein, it is common ground that the order was made on March 8, 1984, under Section 45-A(1) of the Act demanding from the appellants a payment of Rs. 26,418 together with interest of Rs. 1,915.45 as contributions towards the insurance for the period from July 2, 1977, to February 28, 1983. According to the Department, the Employees' State Insurance Act is applicable to the appellant firm on the ground that the operation carried out at Sal Curti in Ponda Taluka is a factory within the meaning of the Act, the process involved is a manufacturing process and the total number of employees employed at a time were to the tune of sixteen and hence the liability to contribute under the Act. Soon after this order dated March 8, 1984, was made, the firm came with an application, vide Application No. EIC/5 of 1985, contending that the Act is inapplicable to the firm. On issues raised in the application, parties led evidence, both oral as well as documentary, and by the order dated July 12, 1988, the Employees' Insurance Court of the State Government held, while dismissing the application, that action of the Department by virtue of its order dated March 8, 1984, is valid.

(3.) Needless to mention that in view of the provisions of Section 82 of the Act the so-called substantial questions of law are incorporated in the memo of appeal, based upon which this appeal was admitted.