- (1.) Appellant has laid this appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, 'Act of 1948) assailing the impugned judgment dated 08.11.2013 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court, Sirohi (for short, 'ESI Court') whereby appellant's application under Section 75 of the Act of 1948 is rejected.
(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that appellant's hotel and restaurant is situated at Aburoad District Sirohi and according to appellant the restaurant is having three to four employees only. It appears that a survey/inspection was conducted by Inspector of the respondent-ESI department and during inspection, it is revealed that in the hotel and restaurant more than ten persons are employed and manufacturing process is carried out with the aid of electricity. On the strength of the report, respondent-department issued a notice dated 12.01.2011 indicating that the appellant's restaurant is a factory and as such is covered within the four corners of the Act of 1948 as an establishment to pay ESI contribution for its employees. In the notice, total amount of Rs. 33,427/- was quantified, which the appellant-employer was held liable to pay as employer's contribution.
(3.) Being aggrieved from the said notice, the appellant approached the learned ESI Court by laying an application under Section 75 of the Act of 1948. From a bare reading of the application under Section 75 of the Act of 1948, it is crystal clear that pleadings are absolutely vague, cryptic and unspecific, and no specific ground as such has been set out in the application by the appellant to prove that it is not covered within the four corners of the Act of 1948. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the application is contested by the respondents and a detailed reply is submitted. In the reply, the respondent-department has, inter alia, averred that a thorough investigation and survey was conducted and the concerned Inspector has prepared a report containing names of eleven employees. The report is signed by authorised representative of the appellant and on the report besides signature of the Manager of the appellant seal of the hotel is also affixed. While adverting to definition of "factory" and "manufacturing process", the respondents have submitted that in view of manufacturing process being carried out in the establishment with the aid of electricity and the number of employees being more than ten, the appellant establishment comes within the ambit of a factory and as such, it is amenable to the Act of 1948. With these averments, the impugned demand notice is justified and it is prayed that the application laid by the appellant is nothing but abortive attempt to thwart implementation of a welfare legislature i.e. the Act of 1948.;