T.P.S. Mann, J. - (1.) THE petition under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" filed by the Respondent -firm for quashing certificate dated 10.5.1979 issued by Appellant -Corporation for recovering an amount of Rs. 5,664.95 was accepted by Judge, Employees State Insurance Court, Amritsar vide order dated 28.2.1985, which order is now under challenge in the present appeal filed under Section 82 of the Act. On the ground that the Respondent -firm had employed 10 or more persons for the purposes of manufacturing woollen cloth, the Corporation issued recovery certificate assessing an amount of Rs. 5,664.95 on ad -hoc basis as State Insurance contribution, which included interest as well for the period 8/76 to 6/78. The firm, however, claimed that it was not covered by the Act. Moreso, it had even deposited a total amount of Rs. 2,961.70 on various dates. Accordingly, the firm filed the petition under Section 75 of the Act and challenged the recovery of the amount as no amount could be recovered by the Corporation. The factum of deposit of Rs. 2,961.70 was, however, denied by the Corporation.
(2.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Court below framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant management had deposited the amount in question? If so, to what effect? OPA 2. Whether the recovery certificate is illegal, without jurisdiction and void? If so, to what effect? OPA To what amount the contribution is due for the period in question?
(3.) RELIEF . 3. After going through the record and hearing learned Counsel for the parties, learned Court below held that the firm was not covered by the provisions of the Act and therefore, not liable to pay the contribution. 4. The main issue in the appeal is as to whether from 8/76 to 12/77 the Respondent firm had employed less than 10 employees or more. In case, it had engaged less than 10 employees, it could not have been covered under the Act. In case, the Corporation could establish that the firm had engaged 10 or more employees, the firm could not avoid the liability under the Act.;