- (1.) THIS appeal challenges the order dated 31-7-2000 passed by the Employees State Insurance court, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1958 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act, for short ).
(2.) IN a nutshell, the facts of the case are that M/s. Hotel Chandra Mahal is a small hotel establishment, which provides only lodging but no boarding for the travelers. According to the appellant, there is no restaurant in the said hotel. The families of the business partners also reside in the same building where the hotel is situated. Since its inception, at no point of time, has it ever employed ten or more employees for wages in connection with business activities of the hotel. Moreover, no manufacturing process is being carried out with the aid of power for the activities pertaining to the hotel. According to the appellant on 30-5-1991, and 6-6-1991 Mr. Yadram Gupta, the Inspector from Employees State insurance Corporation (hence forth to be referred to as 'the Corporation' for short) conducted a survey of the appellant's establishment to see whether the provisions of the Act are applicable to the establishment or not. illegibly, during the course of survey he was convinced that the establishment did not employ ten or more employees not it was engaged in manufacturing process with the aid or power. Furthermore, according to the appellant on the dates or the inspection, no inspection report was drawn by Mr. Yadram Gupta, However, he did handover a 01 -Form to the appellant to be filled up and also instructed him how to fill up the said form. During the inspection illegibly, the said Inspector also asked the partner of the concern Mr. Gopal Lal to sign certain papers. Thereafter, the appellant did not hear anything from the corporation. However, to his shock and dismay he received an order dated 22-10-1991 from the Corporation informing him that on the basis of the Inspection Report dated 30-5-1991, the appellant-establishment has been covered under the provisions of the Act with effect from 30-5-1991. The appellant immediately filed a representation on 17-7-1992, wherein it contended that it is not covered under the said Act. For, it neither employs ten or more employees for wages nor carries out any manufacturing process with the aid of power. It further contended that although a domestic fridge of 165 Ltrs. was being used at the premises, but the said fridge is used for domestic purpose and not for the purpose of the hotel. It was also contended that no article for sale in the hotel is kept in the said fridge. However, the Corporation did not pay any heed to the representation. In fact on 4-9-1991, it issued a show cause notice wherein it assessed the dues on an ad hoc basis from May, 1991 to March, 1992. Therefore, having left with no other alternative, the appellant file an application under section 75 of the Act challenging the coverage of the appellant and also notice dated 4-9-1991.
(3.) THE Corporation filed their reply wherein they contended that on the dates of the inspection, the inspector, had discovered that eleven employees were working in the hotel. Moreover, the fridge was being used for the purpose of storing the cold drinks and other eatable items. The Inspector had also discovered that a pump was being used for carrying water to the overhead tanks on the roof of the building. Lastly, it was contended that an inspection report was prepared on the spot which was signed by Mr. Gopal Lal, the partner of the appellant concern.;