REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES Vs. SATYABADI PRESS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal Under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment of the Insurance Court, Cuttack in Insurance Misc. Case No. 4/78.

(2.) THE question for consideration in this appeal is whether the conclusion of the Insurance Court that the Satyabadi Press and 'The Samaj' are the two distinct units is at all sustainable in law. The employees working in the establishment of 'The Samaj' were not covered under the definition of 'employee' Under Section 2(9) of the Act until the said definition was amended in the year 1968. After the definition was. amended the officers of the Regional Director, Employees' State insurance Corporation held some enquiry and then demanded contribution in respect of the employees serving in 'The Samaj from the Satyabadi Press for the period 29 -1 -1968 till December, 1976. As the contribution amount was not p3id certificate proceeding was initiated. The management of the Satyabadi Press appeared before the Certificate Officer disouting the demand, in question and then filed an application before the Insurance Court Under Section 75 of the Act contending inter alia that 'The Samaj' an independent establishment having no connection with the Satyabadi Press though both were situated within one compound. It was also stated that after the State Government issued notification Under Section 1(5) of the Act including the Newspaper establishment under the provisions of the Act. the Samaj organisation had voluntarily making contribution under the Act for safeguarding the ' interest of its employees. But the Satyabadi Press could not be made liable to make payment in respect of the employees of 'The Samaj' from 1968. The insurance Court had disposed of the said application in favour of the Satyabadi Press. The Reqional Director had come up in appeal against the said decision in M.A.2408 That appeal was disposed of and the order of the Insurance Court had bean set aside and the matter had been remitted back to the Insurance Court for reconsideration. it had been indicated in the said order that the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Narakesari Prakashan Ltd. and Ors. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation etc. etc. (AIR 1984 SC 1916) should be borne in mind. It was indicated by this Court while remanding the matter that the important considerations should be waived for a decision whether the employees of 'The Samaj form an integral part of the Satyabadi Press or not which was the unit of ownership ; unit of employment ; management under one person ; existence of the two units within one and the same premises and the main object of the Press as indicated in the Trust deed itself. After the matter went back on remand, the learned Insurance Court framed two issues relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Product Ltd. v. Employees Insurance Court and Anr. (AIR 1978 SC 1958). The Insurance Court held that unless and until some commercial nexus was established besides the unit of ownership, the employees of 'The Samaj' could not be treated to be the employees of the Satyabadi Press, After scrutinising the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 and Exts. 1 to 37 as well as on scrutinising the evidence of three witnesses on behalf of the Corporation and Exts -A to U, proved on there behalf, the Insurance Court came to the following conclusions ; (i) the daily Samaj is printed in the Satyabadi Press since long before the dispute without any deviation, (ii) The Gopabandhu Process, 'The Samaj', The Satyabadi Press and the Gopabandhu Type Foundry have their own offices and establishments within one compound going by the name 'Gopabandhu Bhawan'. (iii) The Manager of M/s. Satyabadi Press holds his office going by the name 'The Samaj' Office' ; (iv) That the manager for all the four enterprises was one and the same ; (v) That the Chairman of alt the four is the Editor -in -Chief of the newspaper 'The Samaj' ; (vi) That 'The Samaj' has been registered under the Orissa Shops and Commercial Establishments Act whereas the Satyabadi Press was registered under the Factories Act ; (vii) For the purpose of Central Excise and Orissa Sales Tax, The Samaj and the Satyabadi Press are independently registered ; (viii) That each unit is managed by an independent manager of its own ; (ix) That Muster rolls for the employees of each unit are being maintained separately ; (xi) Accounts of business for each of the units is being separately maintained and audited ; (xii) That the Satyabadi Press levied demand against the establishment of The Samaj for payment of the printing charges and The Samaj meets its demands from its own earning made from advertisments made in the Newspaper. Thereafter on examining the Will executed by late Gopabandhu Das (Ext. G) on the strength of which the Servants of the People Society acquired right over the Press and 'The Samaj' the Insurance Court came to the conclusion that there was no unit of ownership between 'The Samaj' and the Satyabadi Press. It further held that though the management of both the institutions, namely, the Samaj and the Satyabadi Press had been entrusted to the one and the same organisation, that is, 'The Servants of People Society'. But the Servants of People Society had been scrupulously maintaining the independent existence of the Satyabadi Press and 'The Samaj'. Finally the Insurance Court came to the conclusion that in the absence of commercial link between The Samaj' and the Satyabadi Press, the demand upon Satyabadi Press for contribution towards employees of The Sarmj was not in accordance with law as envisaged under the Act. It also held that the Servants of People Society became the trustee in respect of the Satyabadi Press and in respect of Samaj became the owner. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, however, the Insurance Court came to the conclusion that the demand cannot be said to be barred by limitation. On the question of service of notice, the Insurance Court came to hold that the Corporation having failed to prove service of notice Under Section 45 -A', levy under Sec, 45 B was bad in law and, therefore, the demand in question would not be tenable. The application of the Satyabadi Press having been allowed and the demand in question having been set aside by the Insurance Court,, the present appeal has been preferred by the Corporation.

(3.) MR . Mohanty appearing for the respondent, on the other hard, contends that the Insurance Court having examined all the relevant materials and having recorded its conclusion bearing in mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court and no substantial question of law being involved, the appeal is not maintainable and the conclusions cannot be interfered with.