HUKUMCHAND MILLS LTD Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under section 82 (2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) is directed by the Hukumchand Mills Ltd. (hereinafter called the Mill) against the decision of the employees' Insurance Court, Indore, in E. S. I. Case No. 28 of 1968 tried along with E. S. I. Case No. 26 of 1968 finding that the Employees' State insurance Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) being entitled to recover Rs. 6052. 40 as employees' state insurance contribution from the mill, decreed the Corporation's claim for that amount with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from 25-7-1968 till its realization and the costs.

(2.) APPELLANT No. 1 is a public limited company. It is a textile Mill situated at Indore and a factory within the meaning of section 2 (12) of the act. Appellant No. 2 is its manager. Sometime before 27-9-1966 some of the members of the administrative staff including assistant accountant, senior accounts clerk, accounts clerk, despatch clerk, inward clerk, stenographer, typists, waste clerk, stores clerk, head jamadar and peons, totalling 26 (vide Ex. D. 4) used to work in some other building but have now started working in a new building at a distance of about 650 feet from the building of the factory. The Mill had not paid any employees' state insurance contribution regarding these 26 persons. After some correspondence between the corporation and the Mill, the Corporation after calling upon the Mill to show cause why the employees' special contribution amounting to rs. 6052. 40 be not recovered from it, presented an application before the employees' Insurance Court, Indore under section 75 of the Act and so did the Mill too. The parties before the Employees' Insurance Court in the two cases (Nos. 26 of 1968 and 28 of 1968) requested the Court to consolidate the two cases and record common evidence. Consequently, the Court by its order of 19-12-1974 came to pass the impugned decree.

(3.) THE respondent-Corporation's objection, that a single appeal alone by the Mill is incompetent because the judgment in the other suit operates as res judicata, considering that the parties to the two cases had admittedly agreed before the Employees' Insurance Court that the two cases be consolidated and tried together and the Court having actually consolidated the two cases, having tried them together and having given a common decision, is not tenable. The issues in the two cases were identical particularly of them the issue :