- (1.) This is an appeal under S. 82, Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, hereafter referred to as 'the Act' and is directed against the order made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, dismissing the appellant's application made under Ss. 75 (g) and 77 of the Act.
(2.) The plaintiff-appellant. M/s. Noorullah Gazanfarullah was a registered partnership firm. It held a licence for supply of potable water within the limits of Aligarh Municipal Board. Its business premises called "Aligarh Water Works" was situated at Udai Singh Road, in the town of Aligarh and its case was that these premises consisted of two separate establishments though adjoining each other. In one establishment there were tube-wells which were meant for pumping water and in the other establishment there was its office. These two establishments we're enclosed within separate boundary walls. The total number of employees in the two establishments was 65 at the relevant time and the Employees State Insurance Corporation by its letter dated 22-12- 1971 required the applicant io furnish information in regard to its employees in form C-1. Evidently that was for the purpose of determining whether the applicant's establishment comes within the definition of a factory and whether the provisions of the Act are applicable to it. In response to that letter the applicant furnished the information. According to it the establishment having the tube-wells employed less than 20 persons and, therefore, it did not fall within the definition of a factory and further its office establishment cannot be treated as a part of the other establishment because there was no manufacturing process being carried on in that establishment and the persons employed there were only bill clerks, cashiers, typists, accountants etc. and the provisions of the Act were not applicable to them. Despite this information the Employees State Insurance Authorities required the applicant to furnish the necessary return and hence the applicant filed an application for declaration that its establishment is not covered by the provisions of the Act and the employees working therein are not liable to be insured under the Act.
(3.) The respondent-opposite party, the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur, pleaded, inter alia, that the applicant's establishment was covered by the provisions of the Act and E. S. I. dues were payable, both in regard to E. S. C. and E. C.;