REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION PANCHDEEP BHAWAN Vs. KIRAN CINEMA K P ROAD GAYA DISTRICT GAYA THROUGH ITS PARTNER SRI KANAK KISHORE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the order dated 2nd of April, 2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Authority under the Employees' State Insurance Court, Patna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Insurance, Court') in E.S.I. Case No. 6 of 2001, whereby on the application of the respondent under section 75(1)(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') it has been held that the respondent-establishment is not liable to pay the demand raised by the appellant-Corporation for the period in question. The demand being perverse is, accordingly, not sustainable in law.

(2.) Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bijpuria, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the order under appeal deserves to be set aside for the reasons that the order has been passed without considering the evidence on the record and also that the case filed by the respondent was barred by the limitation prescribed under section 77(1-A) of the Act. It is submitted that the appellants had produced on the record the survey report as also the inspection report as well as the coverage notice as per Form C-11 dated 18th of December, 1981 (Ext.C) and also adduced the evidence oral and documentary of the retired employee Daso Thakur as O.P.W.1. The evidences were not considered in its correct perspective. As such, the order deserves to be set aside.

(3.) Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that in terms of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 82 of the Act/ no appeal is permissible in law before this Court against the order of the Insurance Court save and except on the question of substantial question of law. It is submitted that in this appeal no substantial question of law is involved. The case has been decided on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties. The Insurance Court has held that in support of the demand neither there is order on the record, if any, passed under section 45A of the Act nor the proceedings leading to passing of the aforesaid order is on the record. It is further submitted that the respondent had filed an application before the Insurance Court within the prescribed period of limitation of three years after knowing the fact for the first time on 28th of February, 2001 when the Bank account was seized and as such the case was filed within the period of limitation.