LAWS(P&H)-1971-3-17

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Vs. SH. B.S. KAPOOR, CENERAL MANAGER AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S. ORGANO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, SONEPAT AND OTHERS

Decided On March 17, 1971
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Appellant
V/S
Sh. B.S. Kapoor, Ceneral Manager And Proprietor Of M/S. Organo Chemical Industries, Sonepat And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents on the basis of Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act 1948 regarding the competency of this appeal must succeed. It is, therefore, unnecessary to advert to the facts in detail. It suffices to notice that the Employees' State Insurance Corporation had instituted the application for the recovery of damages from the respondent -employers arising from the death of their employee Bhartu, and had claimed Rs. 5,350/ - as the capitalised value of the periodical payments which the Corporation was liable to pay to the dependents of the deceased The respondent -employers expressly took up the position that the death of. Bhartu was not the result of their negligence and it was also pleaded that the fencing around the machinery and the shaft had been duly provided On these pleadings apart from others the material issue No. 1 was framed in the following terms:

(2.) MR . Sarin on behalf of the respondent forcefully contends that on the facts of the present case no substantial question of law whatsoever and in fact no question of law arises in the present appeal and the same is hence not maintainable in view of Section 82(2) of the Act.

(3.) IN fairness to the learned counsel for the appellant, it must be mentioned that he sought to place reliance on N.B. Mills, Indore, v. E.S.I. Corporation Indore 4 A close perusal of that judgment, however, shows that issues involved therein were the nature of the obligation imposed under Section 21 of the Factories Act and whether the particular injury suffered by the employee was an employment injury. It is thus evident that the issue arising in the present appeal concerning the factum of a substantial question of law was not even remotely adverted to in the said authority. I am hence unable to see how that decision can be of any aid to the learned counsel for the appellant.