MEENAKSHI METAL INDUSTRIES Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION HAVING REGIONAL OFFICE AT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the order passed by the E.S.I. Judge, Tiruchirapalli in E.S.I.O.P. No. 3/1975 filed under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948(hereinafter called as "the Act")

(2.) THE petitioner in his petition contends briefly as follows: THE petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in Sheet Metal hard-wares manufacturing from 1-4-1971. Prior to the partnership business, it was a Proprietary Concern of one Jambunathan as a Proprietor. THEre are eight persons employed in the petition-mentioned Firm in the premises. THE respondent filed an application in E.S.I O.P. No. 2/1967 for passing a decree against the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 2270/- as due from the petitioner towards employer's contribution for the period from 1-9-1963 to 25-3-1967. THE Court found that there are more than 20 persons employed in the factory and a direction was given to the Proprietorship Concern to pay a sum of Rs. 2270/- as employer's contribution. During the pendency of the said proceedings from 1967, from 1-4-1967 the workers in the-Proprietary Concern went away and the factory was closed from November, 1970. From 21-3-1967, there were only less than 20 employees and the maximum number of employees was 17. When the Partnership concern was formed, the total number of employees employed was only 8 persons, THE Authorities have held that the petitioner Concern is not a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act. Since the petitioner Concern ceased to be a factory within the meaning of the Employees State Insurance Act as well as the Factories Act, there is no liability on the part of the petitioner to make employer's contribution or employees contribution. In September 1975, the respondent has issued a notice stating that the sum of Rs. 21,642-70 with future interest is due from the petitioner concern, Even while correspondence was pending between the petitioner and the respondent, final orders were passed in September, 1975. THE petitioner Concern is not liable to make any contribution for the period mentioned in the notice. THE notice has made a claim even for the period covered in the E.S.I.O.P. No. 2/1967. THEre were no arrears of any employer's contribution. THE respondent had issued a certificate to the Collector to recover the amount under Revenue Recovery Act. When the petitioner is questioning the arrears of employers and employees contribution, the respondent should have issued a show cause notice.. But, without issuing any such notice, on adhoc basis, it has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is bound to pay the said amount. Hence the petition for declaration that the petitioner is not liable to pay any contribution under the Act as claimed in the petition.

(3.) ON the above pleadings the learned E.S.I. Judge has held that the respondent has fixed the contribution payable by the petitioner from the report of the Inspector and from the information gathered otherwise and it cannot be stated that it is incorrect and that the Employees' State Insurance Act is applicable to the petitioner Concern and dismissed the petition.