ASHOK KUMAR SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LABOUR GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHRIRAM BHAWAN NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner for quashing the entire proceeding of Certificate No. 3587 forwarded vide letter No. P/42-5299/lns.1 dated 16.9.2002 (Annexure-6) by the Authorized Officer, Insurance Branch, Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for the sake of brevity), Regional Office, Patna (Respondent No. 5) to the Recovery Officer of the Corporation, Patna (Respondent no.6) for recovery of contribution, under Sections 45C to 45I of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) for a period from 20.1.1989 to 31.3.1994 and for directing the Respondents to decide whether the establishment of the Petitioner is covered under the Act and also for declaring that the coverage letter/certificate wrongly brought the Petitioner's factory within the purview of the Act on the basis of wrong inspection report dated 31.10.1990 taking freight and carriage charges of Rs. 50.00 as the payment made to casual worker and partners of the Industry and further for directing the Respondents to refund Rs. 75,330.00 withdrawn from the Bank Account of the Petitioner in Punjab National Bank, Muzaffarpur.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he had a small scale industry at Industrial Estate, Bela, Muzaffarpur in the name of M/s Sarvo Plast, which was a partnership firm and its premises was inspected on 31.10.1990 (Annexure-1) and a preliminary enquiry report was submitted that including salary paid partner, 10 persons were found employed in the Industry and one casual labour was engaged from 15.1.1990 for unloading work and hence the establishment be treated as covered under Section 2(12) of the Act and, accordingly, final coverage certificate was issued by the Regional Director (Respondent No. 2) allotting code on 12.3.1991 (Annexure-2).

(3.) It was also claimed that when the Petitioner came to know about the said inspection and certificate, he filed an application before the Regional Director (Respondent No. 2) on 16.1.1992 (Annexure-3) stating that only 6 persons were employed in the establishment and the report about 10 persons working there was wrong, whereafter the Regional Deputy Director (Respondent No. 3) issued letter dated 10.4.1992 (Annexure-4) holding that on verification of records of the Petitioner's concern, it was found that 10 employees including one casual worker were found working and hence advised the Petitioner to comply with the directions.