- (1.) The present appeal has been preferred under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 25.3.2009 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court, Ranchi-cum-Labour Court, Ranchi in ESI Case No. 01/2003 finding that the petitioner/appellant being legal heir of the owner of Ranchi Metal Industries is liable to pay legal dues of his father payable to Opp. Party/Respondent.
(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the appellant is the proprietor of M/s. Ranchi Industries established in the year 1998 and production was started from March 2000 with its workshop and office situated at Ratu Road, Ranchi and his factory deals in manufacturing and selling of utensils. A notice dated 11.3.1999 was issued to the appellant by the Opp. Party to pay the contribution as per statement enclosed (Annexure-1 to this appeal) Thereafter, another notice was issued on 15.5.2001 to the appellant directing therein to pay the contribution in respect of M/s. Ranchi Metal Industries. In response to the said notice, the appellant stated that the proprietor of M/s. Ranchi Industries and Ranchi Metal Industries are two different entity and therefore, Ranchi Industries is not liable to pay the said contribution under E.S.I. Act. Thereafter, the Deputy Director, ESI passed the order dated 4.12.2002 under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act (Annexure-IV) directing therein to pay Rs. 1,41,815/- (rupees one lac forty one thousand eight hundred and fifteen) along with 15% interest from the date of order till the payment is made. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a petition before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi- cum- ESI Court under Section 75 of the E.S.I. Act and raised various contentions including the contention that M/s. Ranchi Industries and Ranchi Metal Industries are two different legal entity and therefore, the appellant being the proprietor of M/s. Ranchi Industries is not liable to pay the said contribution. It was also contended before the learned ESI Court that assuming for the time being that the appellant is liable to pay the contribution than in that case the liability will be to the extent of 25% only in view of the provisions as contained in Section 25 of the Partnership Act and he cannot be made responsible for the entire claim of contribution. The another contention was regarding limitation that the petition preferred by the appellant was within the prescribed period of limitation.
(3.) Opposite Party has filed written statement cum show cause and raised various contentions in response to the contention raised by the appellant. The learned ESI Court rendered the decision after evaluating the evidence on record vide its order dated 25.3.2009 and thereby dismissed the petition filed by the appellant.;