LAWS(GAU)-2015-8-98

M/S SPEED SALES PVT. LTD G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORP. & ANR. BAMUNIMAIDAN, GUWAHATI

Decided On August 13, 2015
M/s Speed Sales Pvt. Ltd G.S. Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati Appellant
V/S
Employees State Insurance Corp. And Anr. Bamunimaidan, Guwahati Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as 'the ESI Act') has been preferred by management of M/s Speed Sale Private Limited. By that judgment the Employees Insurance Court (herein after referred to as 'the EI Court') dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Sec. 75 of the ESI Act.

(2.) M/s Speed Sale Private Ltd. claiming to be a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 filed an application under Sec. 75 of the ESI Act before the EI Court on 03.10.2001 stating that the Assistant Regional Director of the respondent No.1 issued a letter to it on 31.08.2001 demanding contribution of a sum of Rs.22,308.00 for the period from Oct., 2000 to March, 2001 for 16 months per employee. It is stated in the application that Inspector of the ESI Corporation by letter dated 29.05.2001 intimated the petitioner that under Sec. 45 of the ESI Act, there shall be an inspection on 07.06.2001 and asked the petitioner to keep all the records ready including the master roll wages register, cash books, vouchers, inspection book, copies of challans etc. Accordingly, there was an inspection on 07.06.2001 but the petitioner's Director being absent on that day the relevant records could not be produced. The Inspection, therefore, left asking the petitioner to keep the records ready on 18.06.2001 but ultimately, he did not visit the shop on that date. The petitioner thereafter received letter dated 31.08.2001 on 15.09.2001 as referred to above. According to the petitioner, it has only 11 numbers of employees in the establishment up to Oct. 1998, 12 numbers of employees from Nov., 1998 to March, 2000, 11 numbers of employees from April, 2000 to June 2000, 12 numbers of employees for the month of July 2000 and 13/14 employees for the period of Aug. 2000 to Sept., 2001. The petitioner's company neither did it engage 20 or more employees in their establishment for wages from the date of incorporation till date nor is it aided by power. So, it is not a factory within the meaning of Sec. 48 of the ESI Act and so, notice served on it was not a valid one. According to the petitioner, the Labour Inspector of the Government of Assam has visited his establishment and it was found that there were 12 number of employees engaged in the establishment for the month of June 1998 to March, 2000. With these averments of facts the petitioner prayed that the impugned notice dated 31.08.2001 annexed as Annexure-1 to that application should be quashed holding that the petitioner's establishment is not covered by the provision of the ESI Act. Upon receipt of this application, learned EI Court registered ESI Case No. 3 of 2002 and issued notice to the respondent corporation who appeared and submitted written statement.

(3.) In Paragraph-4 of the written statement the respondents pleaded that in course of inspection held on 04.02.2000 and 14.03.2000 petitioner was found using power in servicing LML bikes and employing more coverable number of employees in their establishment. The petitioner is an authorised dealer of LML products and other electrical appliances but it failed to comply with the requests made by the respondents vide coverage letter No.43-3297-67 dated 16.06.2000. Denying the averments of facts made in the application, the respondents further stated in Paragraph-6 of the written statement that the establishment is a factory within the meaning of Sec. 2(12) of the ESI Act and that the application, made on the basis of notice dated 31.08.2001, was made on ad-hoc basis as the petitioner failed to produce any record for inspection. The petitioner refused to submit declaration forms for insuring their employees and avoided contributions in the pretext of self induced non-insurance of employees which are not acceptable. With these averments, the respondents prayed that the petition be dismissed with compensatory cost of Rs.5,000.00 only.