MOHAN LAL Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR E S I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called "the Act"). The appellant had filed an application under Section 75 of the Act, contesting the decision of the ESI Corporation to treat the factory of the appellant to be covered under the provisions of the Act. After taking evidence in the case, the trial Court rejected the contention and held that the factory was covered under the Act. Aggrieved by this decision, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no legal evidence to hold that 20 or more persons worked during the relevant period in the Establishment of the appellant. It was submitted that though Form 01 was signed by the appellant, he had deposed in the Court that he had signed on a blank form and had not admitted the contents thereof. It was also submitted that it was necessary for the respondent to have examined the person who had got Form 01 signed by the appellant.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the ESI Corporation submitted that the moment signatures on Form 01 are accepted by the appellant to be his own, the burden to prove that the contents were not true shifted to the appellant. In these circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, it was not necessary to examine the Inspector, who had inspected the factory and got the Form 01 signed by the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that there was no substantial question of law involved in the appeal and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.