- (1.) The appellant had filed an application under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act (Act for short) on the ground that the firm was not covered under the Act. The demand raised by the respondent was stated to be illegal.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was running a poultry farm in the name of M/s Poona Pearls with head office at Poona (now Pune) with branches at various places including Gurgaon. The firm of the appellant was attached with a hatchery at Carterpuri/Kartarpuri, Gurgaon, which, however, closed down in 1983. Besides that, the appellant had another hatchery at Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon. Since the appellant was a hatchery, it was not covered under the Act. The petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that it was clear from Ex.P1 that hatching of eggs was not a manufacturing process and appellant being a hatchery, was exempted. The said document was an office order dated 3.10.1987 sending copies to Employees State Insurance Corporation of letter dated 19.6.1987. The letter was addressed to the Regional Director, ESIC, Haryana regarding covering of M/s Hatchery-cum-Poultry Farm, Bhiwani and M/s Rani Shaver Poultry Breeding Farm, Gurgaon. Both the Companies were informed that hatching of eggs was not a manufacturing process but the coverage was to be decided according to the coverage of cold storages/deep freezers etc. and also regarding being a shop. It is un-understandable as to what benefit the appellant can derive from Ex.P1. Learned counsel contended that from the letter it was clear that hatching of eggs did not involve manufacturing process and was thus not covered under the Act. The letter, however, did not make any mention exempting the firms' name therein from the purview of the Act. In any case, the letter did not relate to the appellant and moreover the witness, who appeared from the office of ESIC, Faridabad as AW2, stated that the matter was still pending.;