P.K. Lohra, J. - (1.) By the instant appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, 'Act'), appellant, a manufacturer of handicraft articles, has laid challenge to judgment & decree dated 4th of November, 2016, rendered by Employees' Insurance Court cum Sr. Civil Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned Court below'). By the impugned judgment & decree, learned Court below has rejected application of the appellant under Section 75 of the Act.
(2.) The facts, apposite for the purpose of this appeal, are that appellant preferred an application under Section 75 of the Act before the learned Court below, inter-alia, challenging demand raised by respondent-Corporation vide its letter dated 30th of April, 2009 for ESI Contribution with interest vis-a-vis workers utilized by it on job-work basis for finishing manufactured articles outside the precincts of factory. It is pleaded by the appellant that those workers have not lent any services to it in manufacturing process through contractor, nor they were directly employed for carrying out manufacturing activities by the principal employer, i.e., the appellant. It is also averred that the amount paid to these individuals was not routed through contractor as such there was no causal connection between these workers and the appellant. With these positive assertions, appellant has challenged the demand notice issued by respondent-Corporation and prayed for its annulment. Besides that, appellant also claimed refund of 50% amount of demand tendered by it under protest.
(3.) The application submitted on behalf of appellant was contested by respondent-Corporation and in its reply all the averments are refuted. The respondent-Corporation, in the return, also pleaded that its Inspector, Shishupal Singh, inspected the factory of the appellant and found that since December 1996 the appellant has employed more than 10 workers and therefore it is an "establishment" within the four corners of Section 1 & 2 of the Act. The respondent-Corporation also laid emphasis that invoking Sections 1 & 2 of the Act, it has rightly covered the appellant-establishment under the Act. While adverting to the plea of the appellant that some manufacturing work was got carried out on job-work basis, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent-Corporation that even if manufacturing work was carried out on job-work basis then too appellant-establishment is covered under the Act and cannot claim immunity from its applicability. Justifying its demand, the respondent-Corporation prayed for rejection of the application.;