- (1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge, quashing certain notice issued by the appellant under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.
(2.) Opposite Party No. 1, Messrs U. P. Hotel and Restaurants Ltd., own the Clerk Shiraz Hotel at Agra. By the impugned notices, the appellant decided that the kitchen of the hotel was a factory or establishment to which the Act applied and demanded certain amounts of contributions towards the Employees' State Insurance Fund and threatened to recover certain amounts of fine. The notices were challenged by the respondent No. 1 by way of a writ petition before this Court. The main contention of the respondent No. 1 was that it was not covered by the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the notices were all illegal. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that before determining the question whether the Act applied or not to the respondent No. 1, the authorities ought to have given them an opportunity of being heard and that since this opportunity was denied, the action was in violation of the principles of natural justice and had to be struck down. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation has preferred this appeal.
(3.) The only question argued before us by Sri B. N. Asthana, Learned counsel for the appellant, is that the authorities were not required to give any hearing to the respondent No. 1 before deciding the question whether the Act was or was not applicable to the hotel. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel that the authorities were not required to give any hearing to respondent No. .1. Section 44 of the Act which is material for this purpose, reads thus : "Employers to furnish returns and maintain registers in certain cases (1) Every principal and immediate employer shall submit to the Corporation to or such officer of the Corporation as it may direct such returns in such form and containing such particulars relating to persons employed by him or to any factory or establishment in respect of which he is the principal or immediate employer as may be specified in regulations made in this behalf. (2) Where in respect of any factory or establishment the Corporation has reason to believe that a return should have been submitted under sub-section (1) but has not been so submitted, the Corporation may require any person in charge of the factory or establishment to furnish such particulars as it may consider necessary for the purpose of enabling the Corporation to decide whether the factory or establishment is a factory or establishment to which this Act applies. (3) Every principal and immediate employer shall maintain such registers or records in respect of his factory or establishment as may be required by regulations made in this behalf." Sub-section (1) requires the employer to submit returns to the Corporation for the purpose of determining their contribution. Subsection (2) refers to a case where no such return has been filed by an employer. In such a case, if the Corporation has reason to believe that a return should have been submitted by the employer, it may require the employer to furnish particulars necessary for the purpose of enabling the Corporation to decide whether the factory or establishment is a factory or establishment to which the Act applies. In the present case also no return had been filed by respondent No. 1. It is not clear whether the Corporation called upon respondent No. 1 to furnish any particulars or not. However, an inspector of the Corporation did go to the hotel and did collect certain particulars, Sub-section (2) contemplates a decision by the Corporation on the question whether the factory or establishment is a factory or establishment to which the Act applies. Such a decision was taken by the Corporation but without giving any hearing to the respondent No. 1. The question is whether in deciding this question the authorities were required to give a hearing or not to respondent No. 1.;