- (1.) This appeal was filed against the order dated 28-1-1993 in E.l.Case No. 29/1991 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court at Hyderabad allowing the above said case filed by the respondent herein M/s. Garden Cafe, Tikke, Nandyal, disbelieving the report of the Inspector of Employees' State Insurance Corporation, who stated in his evidence that he visited the hotel in question and found the grinder which was being used with the aid of power. The Inspector in his report and also in his evidence stated that he witnessed the electrical grinder was being used at the time of his visit in the hotel in question and he did not state the size of the electrical grinder, which was being used for manufacturing purpose, and whether it was running. As such the lower Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner-hotel is not being run with the aid of electrical grinder and as such the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act does not attract. Aggrieved by the above said finding of the lower Court, the Employees State Insurance Corporation filed this appeal.
(2.) To appreciate the above said finding of the Employees' Insurance Court, it is necessary to record few facts of this case, which are as follows: The petitioner in the E.L Case No.29/1991 i.e., M/s. Garden Cafe, Tikke, Nandyal, is a registered firm under the Partnership Act and it is registered under A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1964 and the said establishment was not registered under the Factories Act. But the Corporation issued a notice dated 3-9-1991 demanding the petitioner Garden Cafe to pay an amount of Rs. 7,656/- being the amount of contribution for the period from 1-4-1990 to 31-3-1991. It was further mentioned in the said notice that the petitioner should pay the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the above said notice. It was further stated by the petitioner Garden Cafe that the said notice is not maintainable as its establishment does not come under the provisions of the Act as the employees are only 9 or 10 in all. It was also stated in the petition by the petitioner Garden Cafe that copies of attendance and acquittance roll for the months of April, 1990 and March, 1991 are filed in support of the above said contention. It was further stated that to bring the petitioner-Cafe under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, the Cafe should have appointed ten or more employees, and therefore, it does not come within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Employees State Insurance Act.
(3.) In reply to the averments made by the petitioner-Cafe, the Corporation has filed written statement, wherein it is stated that in fact the Inspector of the respondent Corporation visited the petitioner-Cafe on 23-7-1990 for the purpose of survey and verified the attendance register tor the period from April, 1990 to June, 1990 and found that ten persons were employed tor wages by the petitioner-Cafe from April, 1990 to June, 1990. Except the attendance register for the said period, no other record was produced for inspection before the Inspector. The Inspector witnessed using the grinder with the aid of power. That grinder was useful for grinding dhals, preparation of chutneys, pickles and juices etc., and it is an essential item for a hotel. The manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power in the petitioner hotel. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act are not attracted is not valid. On the basis of the Inspector's report, the petitioner hotel was covered under the Act with effect from 1-4-1990. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the above said amount demanded under the notice.;