A M GHOSH Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
LAWS(CAL)-1977-7-11
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 01,1977

A.M.GHOSH Appellant
VERSUS
EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY H. DAS GUPTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) An order of conviction under S. 85(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is the subject matter of challenge in this Rule obtained on a revisional application.
(2.) On a petition of complaint lodged by the opposite party, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, the petitioner who is the manager cum partner of Messrs. Bengal Box Manufacturing Company was prosecuted for having committed an offence under the aforesaid provision. Complainant's case shortly was that the petitioner was the principal employer in respect of the factory of Messrs. Bengal Box Manufacturing Company of No.4, Raj Kumar Chatterji Road, Calcutta, which is covered by the said Act, and as such, he was liable to submit returns in Form Sc. I under S.44 and S. 73E of the said Act read with a notification No.RS9/52B dated 16.2.52 within 21 days from the date of issue of the said form; though such forms were issued on several occasions and in spite of repeated requests the petitioner failed to submit any such return; that on 21.12.63 one such blank form was issued with a covering letter asking the petitioner to furnish the particulars by filing a return and though the petitioner received the said letter on the day following yet he failed and neglected to file any return or furnish the particulars called for, and as such, he committed an offence under S. 85(g) of the said Act. The complaint was lodged on 5.3.64 on a prior sanction of the Regional Director under 86(1) of the said Act.
(3.) At the trial before the Learned Presidency Magistrate, the complainant-opposite party led evidence to prove that the petitioner as the manager cum occupier of the factory was the principal employer in respect thereof within the meaning of S. 2(17) (i) of the said Act. Evidence was also led t prove that though a return and particulars were called for from the petitioner in Form Sc. I from time to time and more particularly on 26.12.63 he failed and neglected to comply with the said requisition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.