- (1.) This is an appeal under S. 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The appellant is S. K. Biswas who carries on business under the name and style of s. K. Biswas & Company.
(2.) One R. N. Chatterji, an Inspector of the E.S.I. Corporation held an inspection of the manufacturing units and the other establishments of the appellant and submitted a report dated November 13, 1969, o the basis where of it was decided by the authorities under the aforesaid statute that the appellant's manufacturing unit is a factory within the meaning of the said Act and all his employees are thus covered by the provisions of the said Act with effect from January 28, 1969. The appellant disputed the said decision in a proceeding initiated before the Employee's State Insurance Court, West Bengal and claimed for a declaration that he does not come within the purview of the Act. He failed before the Employees' State Insurance Court and his application being dismissed by an order dated May 21, 1971, passed by the learned Judge Employees' State Insurance Court, West Bengal he has preferred the present appeal. This appeal being limited to substantial questions of law we will proceed on the findings of the learned Judge, Employees' State Insurance Court so far as facts are concerned. On the evidence adduced, the learned Judge has found that the appellant carries on his manufacturing process at 3 units, namely,: - JUDGEMENT_300_CALLT1_1979Html1.htm The learned Judge further found that the appellant maintains 3 other non-manufacturing units, namely: - JUDGEMENT_300_CALLT1_1979Html2.htm Such a finding, it appears was arrived at by the learned Judge on acceptance of the evidence led on behalf of the present respondent and report of the Inspector R. N. Chatterji referred to hereinbefore.
(3.) The appellant did not really dispute the number of employees employed in the above 6 units but raised two contentions in support of his claim that he does not come within the purview of the Act. In the first place, it was contended by the appellant before the learned Judge, Employees' State Insurance Court that since the three manufacturing units are situated at three different and distinct premises, each constituting an independent unit by itself and none employing more than 20 employees therein, none of them is within the purview of the Act. Secondly, it was contended on behalf of the appellant before the learned Judge in the court below that even taking the three manufacturing units to be one, even then the total number of employees employed therein being only 15 the same cannot come within the definition of factory as defined in S. 2(12) of the said Act. An objection was raised to the effect that the respondent could not have added the employees employed in the non-manufacturing units situate in different premises altogether to the employees employed in the three manufacturing units to hold that the appellant employed twenty or more persons in such a manner that he runs a factory within the meaning of S. 2(12) of the said Act.;