EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1982-10-21
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on October 17,1982

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, HYDERABAD Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the Special First Class Magistrate and the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in prosecution S.C. No. 45 of 1979, which was initiated on a complaint by the Employee's State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad, represented by its Inspector, for an offence punishable under Section 85 (g) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. hereinafter be referred to as the Act, as the accused is said (o have failed to produce the registers, records of his establishment at the complainant's office by or on or after 6-6-1979.
(2.) The accused has an establishment by name Messrs Ajantha Transport (Regd) situated at 15-8-514/2, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. The Inspector visited the establishment of the accused on 4-5-1976 and demanded under Section 45 of the Act to produce the records of the establishment i.e. attendance legister, wage register, cash book, ledger and copies of all the returns to be submitted under the Act and any other documents connected with the payment of wages, salaries etc., for the last 5 \ years i.e. from 1-3-1974 onwards. But the accused failed to produce tha records and hence the prosecution was launched against him.
(3.) In the enquiry a number of documents were brought on record They are all admitted by the accused. It is useful if they are mentioned herein. The Regional Director addressed a letter dated 5-11-1976 to the accused asking him to prcduce all the records maintained by him at their office within 15 days, The accused gave a reply dated 18-1-1976 to the effect that the Proprietor was out of station and he should wait till his return. Again on 18-1-1977 the Regional Director addressed a letter to the accused requiring him to produce the records of his establishment at the Regional Office within 15 days failing which legal action would be initiated. But the accused did not produce the records. Hence the Inspector of the Corporation visited the establishment of the accused on 17-3-1977 for the inspect; on records But the Manager who was actually present in the establishment, did not produce the records on the grourd that he was busy otherwise and that all the records were dumped in the record room and he would arrange to prcduce them on 30-3-1977. Again on 24 3-1977 the Inspector visited the establishment of the accused. Even then the accused did not produce the records on the ground that the office manager, who was in the custody of the registers, was not present and they would be produced after 11 4-1377. It appears on 27-9-1977 the Inspector again visited the establishment of the accused but the accused did not produce the records. On 27-10-1977 the Inspector issued a registered letter informing the accused that the records were not produced when he visited on 13-9-1677, 17-9-1977 and also on 27-9-1977 for examination of all the records. As the records were not produced by the accused before the Inspector on those dates when the Inspector visited the establishment, the accused contravened the provisions of Section 45(2) of Act, and the accused is. therefore, liable for punishment under Section 85 of the Act and before recommending for prosecution another chance was given to the accused to produce the required records and the accused was, therefore, asked to produce the records on 8-11-1977 at 11 a.m. at the office of the Regional Director. Inspite of this notice the accused did not produce the records. The Inspector, therefore, wrote to the Regional Director to initiate proceedings.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.