ANIL CHAT BHANDAR Vs. DEPUTY REGIONAL DIRECTORLAWSUITDOWNLOAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) The petitioner, a proprietary concern, is aggrieved by orders passed by the respondent-Authorities under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "ESI Act"), whereby the establishment run by the petitioner has been covered under the provisions of the ESI Act and the petitioner has been called upon to deposit contributions under the ESI Act. The petitioner is engaged in the business of preparing and selling sweets and snacks in the City of Nagpur. On 02/06/2009 an Inspector of the respondent-Authority under the ESI Act conducted an inspection and prepared an inspection report, recording that eleven employees were working in the petitioner concern. On this basis, on 29/06/2009 the Assistant Director of the respondent-Authority sent a letter to the petitioner, requesting it to furnish details in the enclosed form as regards the employees working with the petitioner. It was stated that if the information was not provided, the respondent-Authorities would be under an apprehension that the petitioner was coverable under section 2(12) of the ESI Act. On 27/07/2009, the petitioner submitted its reply to the said letter and stated that there were only five persons working in the petitioner concern. On 19/05/2010, the respondent-Authorities sent a notice to the petitioner to produce all records relating to the proprietary concern and thereafter on 14/12/2010 the respondent-Authorities sent a communication to the petitioner on the subject of implementation of the ESI Act and registration of employees of the establishment of the petitioner under section 2(12) of the ESI Act. In the said communication, reference was made to the inspection carried out on 02/06/2009 and code number was allotted to the petitioner concern.