BAIJOO SALES Vs. REGL DIR ESIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, has been filed by M/s. Baijoo Sales, Jaipur against the order of the Judge, Employees State Insurance Court, Jaipur dated May 12, 1987 rejecting the application filed by the appellant.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are these. The appellant-M/s. Baijoo Sales, Jobner Bagh, State Road, Jaipur was engaged in the work of wood cutting, wood plaining and wood drilling. The factory of the appellant was inspected by the respondent No. 1. He prepared his Inspection Report dt. August 29, 1982. As per his report, he was of the view that the appellant-establishment came to be covered with effect from August 20, 1982 by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act' ). The appellant contested the coverage by the letter dt. August 30, 1984. The respondent No. 1 The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Jaipur, without taking care of the protest made by the appellant, issued a draft order dated August 31, 1984. It was also contested by the appellant-establishment vide letter dated September 8, 1984. On September 24, 1984, the respondent No. l issued to the appellant-establishment a notice calling upon the appellant establishment to show cause as to why it should not be prosecuted under Section 85 of the Act with regard to non-payment of contributior for the period from March 31, 1984 to July 31. 1984. Thereafter, the appellant filed an applica-,tion under Section 75 (1) (g) of the Act praying that it be declared that the appellant establishment was not covered under the Act. The respondent No. 1 be restrained from effecting the recovery of the amount of contribution as determined on ad hoc basis under Section 45-A of the Act as also from launching prosecution against the appellant-establishment. The respondent No. 1 alleged that the Inspector visited the factory of the appellant establishment on August 20, 1982 and August 21, 1982. The Inspector obtained the Employers Registration Form 01 in the names of M/s. Baijoo Furnitures and M/s. Baijoo Sales. It was found at the time of inspection that 9 persons were employed for wages in M/s. Baijoo Sales and 13 persons in M/s. Baijoo Furnitures. Both these firms carry on their business in one and the same premises which has one main gate. Both these firms were controlled by Shri Bhanwar Lal Sharma.

(3.) BOTH the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. On the pleadings of the parties, the following three issues were framed by the Employees State Insurance Court:-