S. K. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sir C. B. Gupta, learned Advocate in support of this appeal.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/judge Employees State Insurance Court, Kanpur Nagar by which appellant has been directed to deposit an amount to the tune of 50% of the disputed amount within one month so that his petition under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act may be registered. Submission is that E. S. I. Act has no application to the facts of the present case as there has never been any sort of employment of any one in the "pahun Pratiksha" the premises for which the Act has been applied. Submission is that so called inspection purported to have been conducted is suo moto without any opportunity to the appellant and copy of the Inspection note has never been given to the appellant and thus the coverage of the petitioner's accommodation is based on conjunctures and surmises. It is further submitted that notice dated 8th May, 2006 and 5th July, 2006, have been issued in arbitrary manner without there being any adjudication about applicability of the Act on the premises in question and liability of the appellant to pay. Lastly, it has been submitted that the Court below has not considered the contention of the appellant on the merits while passing the impugned order as the Court has ample power to waive the condition of deposit or in suitable case the amount of deposit can be reduced. In view of the aforesaid submissions this Court has examined the matter.
(3.) AS controversy/matter appears to be very small this Court is of the view that keeping the matter pending by giving notices to the respondents to appear will be an step towards lingering on the matter and will engage both sides and this Court also for quite long and therefore, on consideration of facts this Court proposes to pass a final order which will be in the ends of justice. The Court below has given a finding that the appellant has not moved any application for exemption/waiver from making deposit to a tune of 50% in terms of Section 75-2 (B) of the Act. It is only on this premises the Court has passed order that appellant is to deposit required amount so that his petition can be registered. During course of argument learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that prayer was made in the Court below in that respect but in the record of this Court no such application has been annexed.;