OMARKHAYYAM BAR Vs. DEPUTY REGIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed on 31st July, 2004 in Application (ESI) No.2 of 1994 by the Employees' State Insurance Court, Nagpur. The appellant carries on business of Restaurant and Bar at Nagpur. The Insurance Inspector of the respondent had conducted a survey and drawn a preliminary inspection report of the establishment of the appellant on 21.4.1993. Thereafter, on 25.9.1993 he visited the establishment of the appellant and submitted his report stating that the establishment was covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereafter referred to as "State Insurance Act"). By the report, the Inspector recommended for coverage of state insurance contribution by the appellant with effect from 20th October, 1989. The appellant was served with the demand note dated 12.11.1993 calling upon it to pay Rs.34,537/ as the amount of insurance coverage within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The appellant made a representation explaining that its establishment was not covered by the provisions of the State Insurance Act. However, it was rejected and further demand notes dated 28.2.1994 and 6.4.1994, asking for payment of said amount of Rs.34,537/ within stipulated period were issued to the appellant. The appellant made a representation against the said demand notes which were also rejected by the respondent. The appellant, therefore, preferred an application before the Employees' State Insurance Court at Nagpur under Section 75 of the State Insurance Act challenging the demand notes.

(2.) The application was resisted and contested on merits by the respondent. The respondent submitted that the establishment of the appellant was squarely covered under the provisions of the State Insurance Act and, therefore, it was liable to pay the coverage amount as demanded from it.

(3.) After considering the evidence available on record and hearing of both sides, the Employees' State Insurance Court, Nagpur, by its order passed on 31st July, 2004 dismissed the application, finding that even though during the relevant period there were less than 20 employees engaged by the appellantestablishment, on facts, it was established that it was a factory within the meaning of Section 2 (12) of the State Insurance Act and as such it attracted the provisions of the State Insurance Act.