M/S SAMABAI MUDRAN KENDRA, A UNIT OF TEZPUR WHOLESALE CO Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BAMUNIMAIDAM, GAUHATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as 'the ESI Act') has been preferred by the M/s Samabai Mudran Kendra, a unit of Tezpur Wholesale Co-Operative Stores Ltd., challenged the judgment and order dated 31.03.2006 passed by the Employees Insurance Court (herein after referred to as 'the EI Court'), Tezpur in ESI Case No. 9 of 2001.

(2.) The appellant herein as petitioner has filed a petition under Sec. 75 of the Act before the EI Court leading to registration of ESI Case No. 6 of 1994. By that application the petitioner challenged demand of contribution from it by respondent corporation and claimed that it is not covered by the provisions of Act as it never employed 10 or more persons in any point of time. It is stated in the application that the respondent served a notice on 23.04.1991 holding that it is liable to make payment of Rs. 4,661.00 for the period commencing from January, 1990 to Feb., 1991. The aforesaid demand notice was made on the basis of the previous letter dated 25.10.1990 addressed to the petitioner thereby applying the provisions of the Act to the case of the petitioner's printing press. In respect to the letter dated 25.10.1990 the petitioner by the application dated 03.11.1990 informed that the Act was not applicable to it inasmuch as it was run by only 3 employees at a time. An officer of the respondent corporation thereafter visited the petitioner's establishment on 14.03.1991 and then, notice dated 23.04.1991 was issued demanding contribution to the tune of Rs. 4,661.00 as aforesaid. According to the petitioner, it is not a factory within the meaning of Sec. 2(12) of the Act in view of the above fact and so prayed for appropriate direction from the EI Court.

(3.) Upon receipt of summons the respondent corporation appeared and submitted written statement denying the case of the petitioner. It was stated in Paragraph-4 of the application that the petitioner firm was run by aid of power in manufacturing process and there were 10 or more than 10 employees working in the firm. This is why on the basis of the report dated 15.03.1991 demand was made for payment of contribution as petitioner's firm comes under the purview of Sec. 2(12) of the Act. The respondent corporation, therefore, prayed that the application be rejected with cost.