DIRECTOR EIS CORPORATION Vs. AMRUTANJAN LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) by respondent No. 1, the Deputy Director, ESI Corporation in E.I. Case No. 41 of 2001 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal -I, Hyderabad.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 herein, Amrutanjan Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, filed the said E.I. Case No. 41 of 2001 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal -I, Hyderabad (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Tribunal' for the purpose of convenience) praying for refund of an amount of Rs. 33,178/ - paid by the said Amrutanjan Limited under protest and also Rs. 11,301/ - paid by the said company erroneously towards conveyance and washing allowances. The Tribunal, after referring to the respective stands taken by the parties, having settled the issues, recorded evidence of P.W.1, R.W.1, R.W.2, marked Exs.P -1 to P -16, R -1 to R -6 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the first respondent Amrutanjan Limited is entitled to the reliefs prayed for and accordingly allowed the E.I. Case No. 41 of 2001. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil miscellaneous appeal had been filed under Section 82 of the Act as aforesaid.

(3.) PER contra, Sri C.R. Sridharan, learned Counsel representing first respondent, Amrutanjan Limited Company, would maintain that in the grounds of civil miscellaneous appeal no substantial question of law as such had been raised and on this ground alone this civil miscellaneous appeal is liable to be dismissed. The learned Counsel also would maintain that inasmuch as the E.S.I. Scheme of India -Employer's Guide is not having statutory force, any definition thereunder cannot be read into the definition specified in the Act. In other words, the definition as it stands in the Act to be interpreted and the further explanation, if any, given in this regard in E.S.I. Scheme of India -Employer's Guide cannot be taken aid of in this regard. The learned Counsel also pointed out to certain admissions made and also had taken this Court through the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 as well, apart from the evidence of P.W.1 and further specifically pointed out to Ex.R -5 and Ex.R -6 in particular and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances since the Tribunal recorded appropriate findings while arriving at a conclusion that Amrutanjan Limited company is entitled for the reliefs prayed for and the said well considered findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be found fault. The learned Counsel also relied on several decisions to substantiate his submissions.