VRINDAVAN Vs. EMPLOYEES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) This Appeal under Sec. 82 (2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 has been preferred against the Order dtd. 21/1/2009 passed by the Labour Court, Ranchi, in E.S.I. Case No.02 of 2003 by which the labour court has dismissed the petition filed under Sec. 75 (1) (a) and (g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 by the appellant herein.

(3.) The brief facts of this case is that the Insurance Inspector of the Employees' State Insurance visited the sweets and namkeen shop of the appellant in the name and style of M/s. Vrindavan on 1/4/1998 and on the next day i.e. 2/4/1998, he conducted a survey and found that altogether 27 employees were employed by the said M/s. Vrindavan and to other establishments which can be clubbed together for the purpose of the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. Out of the 2 establishments which were brought one chat shop was running in the verandah of M/s. Vrindavan for which payments were collected at the counter of M/s. Vrindavan and another establishment from which sweets and namkeen items were supplied to M/s. Vrindavan was said to be belonging to the father of the owner of M/s. Vrindavan who resides jointly with the owner of M/s. Vrindavan and consequent upon that a demand notice was sent to the appellant on 27/9/2002. The case of the appellant-petitioner is that the sweet shop of the appellant-petitioner has no functional integrality with the Chat shop run in its verandah by one Manoj Kumar upon taking rent of that place from the appellant-petitioner and the other shop at Niwaranpur which was clubbed with the shop of the petitioner; is run by the father of the proprietor of the petitioner-appellant and these three establishments have separate licence under Bihar Shops and Establishment Act. Hence, it was claimed by the appellant-petitioners that the respondent-opposite parties committed error in clubbing the three establishments together and arriving at the conclusion that the three establishments together employed 27 persons, hence, the establishments of the petitioner is covered by the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The appellant- petitioner further pleaded that the opposite parties-respondents, thereafter issued notices and letters to the petitioner from time-to-time which have been annexed as Annexure-6, 6/A and 8 to the petition.