THE DEPUTY REGIONAL DIRECTOR Vs. HOTEL RAMA INTERNATIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the Deputy Director, E.S.I.C., Nagpur against the order dated 7.7.1994, passed by Judge, ESI Court & Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad (for short "Trial Judge").

(2.) Respondent no. 1 is an establishment and is running a hotel at M.I.D.C., Industrial area, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. The first inspection was conducted on 19.3.1979 and a letter was sent on 17.3.1980 asking the hotel to pay contribution of Rs. 1,46,309.38 ps. for the period 1.2.1976 to 31.1.1980. The appellants gave first notice on 9.5.1980 to respondent no. 1 demanding contribution towards insurance of the employees working in the hotel. After amendment to the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 in 1980, for the purpose of contribution, the unit of respondent no. 1 was covered w.e.f. 1.2.1980. Thereafter on 22.12.1980, the inspection was conducted by the Inspector of respondent No. 1 Corporation after considering the documents and the spot inspection, he submitted final report. On the basis of the said report, by letter dated 17.3.1983, contribution of Rs. 8,074/- for the period of January, 1981 to October, 1982 and contribution of Rs. 1,46,309.38 ps. for the period of 1.2.1976 to February, 1980 was demanded from the respondent hotel. The hotel establishment gave reply dated 28.4.1983 to the letter of demand and requested for personal hearing and reconsideration of the matter. So, personal hearing was given on 16.7.1983. The representative of the establishment attended the said hearing. The representative asked for some record and sought time and thereafter no hearing had taken place. Thereafter, the appellants sent letter dated 25.7.1983 demanding details from the establishment to which respondents replied by letter dated 31.7.1983. The respondent-establishment took stand that the contribution sought was illegal and was not payable. So, the appellants again served notice on 6.9.1983 claiming arrears of the contribution of Rs. 1,54,383.51 ps. for the period 1.2.1976 to 31.1.1980. Thereafter, as the contribution was not paid, the appellants served an order under section 45-A of the ESI Act, for payment of the said amount on 28.10.1983.

(3.) The aforesaid orders were challenged by the respondents before the Trial Judge, on the ground that the determination of the contribution under section 45-A of the Act, is baseless and incorrect. It was contended that in the amended E.S.I. Act, "kitchen" was covered under the Act from 1980 and so, the amount was payable only after 1980 and not from 1976. It was contended that not more than 20 workers were employed in the kitchen and the appellant Corporation had committed mistake in calculating the number of the utility servants as kitchen servants. There is a difference between the kitchen employees and utility employees and, therefore, the respondent establishment is not liable to pay any contribution. It was also contended that no personal hearing was given and the authority has no power to determine the contribution, as also the order passed by him is not well reasoned and is defective.