- (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an application has been preferred bearing E.S.I. Case No. 6 of 2005 by the respondents and the concerned officer of the E.S.I. Corporation has called upon the present petitioner to present certain documents for the year 1985 to 1991, which the petitioner is unable to present and therefore, the respondents have passed order dated 4th May, 2009, which is at Annexure5 to the memo of the petition whereby, it has been stated that if the documents are not presented, adverse inference will be drawn, under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Against this order, the present petition has been preferred by the Management.
(2.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) It appears that the respondents have called upon the present petitioner to present the documents i.e cash book, ledger book, profit and loss account, balance sheet, income tax return, original vouchers and bills, for the period running from April, 1985 to March, 1991, which is a subject matter of the present proceedings in E.S.I. Case No. 6 of 2005, which has already been initiated, before the E.S.I. Court. (ii) It also appears that certain documents have called upon by the respondents and the petitioner has given an application that he is not in possession of these documents. (iii) It appears that the E.S.I. Court is going on with the matter bearing E.S.I. Case No. 6 of 2005. The order at Annexure5 dated 4th May, 2009 is an interim order, no final order has been passed and therefore, there are enough and adequate opportunities with the petitioner to represent his case correctly, in accordance with facts and law and still there is a scope to convince the E.S.I. Court under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. Under Section 82 of the Act, 1948, an appeal is provided against the final order, passed by the E.S.I. Court and therefore, at this stage, I am not inclined to exercise extraordinary powers, vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If there is any error in appreciating the facts or in appreciating the law at any intermediatory stage, this Court will not interfere with the proceedings before the E.S.I. Court. That all depends upon the final order, passed upon the evidences, documents and after canvasing arguments by the parties. The petitioner should not presume any order against it. It may happen that the authorities may commit an error in appreciating the facts and law and therefore, an appeal is provided and therefore, this is not a proper stage, on which, this Court should correct an order of E.S.I. Court. Looking to the order at Annexure5 to the memo of the petition, this Court is not expressing opinion. This point is kept open to be decided by the E.S.I. Court at the final hearing of the E.S.I. Case No. 6 of 2005 that what inference will be drawn under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
(3.) In view of these facts and reasons, there is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.;