JUDGMENT Rajesh Tandon, J. 1. Heard Shri C.K. Sharma, counsel for the appellant and Shri V.K. Kohli, counsel for the respondent. 2. By the present appeal, filed under Section 82 of Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 the appellant has prayed for setting aside the order dated July 9, 2001 and the decree dated July 12,2001 passed by the E.S.I. Court, Dehradun in E.S.I., case No. 11/2000. 3. Briefly stated, proceedings were initiated being suit No. 11/2000 (old No. Miscellaneous case No. 160/1997) for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff Tops Food Product through its partner Anil Kumar Marwah against the Employees’ State Insurance Company stating therein that the applicant is a partnership firm known as ’Tops Food Products’ situate at; village Kanwah, Dehradun and there are two partners in the firm namely Ms. Meena Marwah and Anil Marwah. The said firm is registered under Shop and Establishment Act and is also registered with the Sales-Tax Department and Income-Tax Department, etc. It has been stated that the said firm is carrying the business of manufacturing ’namkeen’, etc. At the time, when the firm started in 1989, there were only three persons employed and later on the firm employed 8 persons. Most of the work of the’ firm like manufacturing of namkeen and packaging, etc. is being done on commission basis. The firm has only 10 employees in its muster-roll and the documents and records with regard to their employment like attendance registers, labour registers are being maintained by the firm. The firm is working as small scale unit after taking loan from the bank. In the year 1993, E.S.I. Inspector during his inspection has found that there are less than 10persons working in the firm. It has been stated that the applicant has another firm known as ’Tops Food Product (Bakery Division)’ which is proprietor firm of Anil Marwah. Both the aforesaid firms i.e. Tops Food Product and Tops Food Product (Bakery Division) are separate firms and have separate sales tax number. Both the firms have separate licences under Shop and Establishment Act. Separate documents and records are being maintained separately in case of both the firms. It has been stated that a person can be partner of many firm at a time and there is no bar in this regard. Both the firms have separate licences under Shop and Establishment Act. Separate documents and records are being maintained separately in case of both the firms. It has been stated that a person can be partner of many firm at a time and there is no bar in this regard. It has been stated that the opposite party has sent a notice to the applicant firm wherein, the opposite party has clubbed both the firms inspite of the fact that both the firms are separate entity and there are no business-relationship between them. The applicant submitted objections alongwith the evidence to the opposite party. The opposite party on April 2,1997 has stated that the firms are separate and they have got two divisions. The opposite party has clubbed both the firms and in order to apply the provisions of the E.S.I. Act to the applicant-firm. The applicant has filed another application but no reply was given and, therefore, an appeal was preferred by the applicant to the Joint-Director, E.S.I. Corporation dated May 23,1997 stating therein that both the firms are separate and the applicant firm is not covered under the E.S.I. Act and the order passed by the E.S.I. Inspector is liable to be set aside. It has been stated that no reply was given by the Joint Director and no hearing was fixed in this regard. It has been stated that the demand which was issued by the opposite party is illegal, void and is not binding upon the applicant. The applicant has prayed for the reliefs to the following effect: (a) That it be declared that the applicant firm is not covered under the E.S.I. Act and all the demand made by the opposite party w.e.f. 1992 onward, is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and the same is not liable to be recovered from the applicant. (b) The defendant be restrained, not to recover the amount from the applicant. (c) Full costs of the applications. (d) Any other relief, to which the applicant is found entitled to, under the circumstances of the case: 4. A written statement, paper No. 37-ka was filed on behalf of the defendant. It has been submitted that the applicant is carrying out two businesses jointly in single premises and producing bread, namkeen and other bakery -products. (d) Any other relief, to which the applicant is found entitled to, under the circumstances of the case: 4. A written statement, paper No. 37-ka was filed on behalf of the defendant. It has been submitted that the applicant is carrying out two businesses jointly in single premises and producing bread, namkeen and other bakery -products. There are more than 10 employees in’ both the firms and, therefore, the provisions of E.S.I. Act are applicable. It has been submitted that in both the firms the owners and partners are the same. The applicant is the owner of the. bakery division and the partner of the namkeen" division. It has been submitted that the wife of Anil Marwah is the other partner of the namkeen division and both the divisions i.e. bakery division and namkeen division belong to single firm. It has been submitted that’ the applicant-firm comes under the E.S.I. Act and, therefore, the demand made by the order dated April 2,1997 under Section 45-A of E.S.I. Act is as per rule. It has been submitted that Anil Marwah and his wife Ms. Meena Marwah are’ showing both the divisions as separate firms in order to escape from the provisions of labour laws. The firm is being carried out jointly and, therefore, both the divisions are liable to be clubbed under Employees’ State Insurance Act. The applicant has neither paid the E.S.I. contribution nor has submitted the details in this regard and, therefore, an order was passed for recovery under Section 45-A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act. It has been submitted that the petition of the applicant is liable to be dismissed with costs. 5. The applicant Anil Marwah has examined himself as P.W. 1. In the documentary evidence, 17 documents as per list 6 ga i.e. Photo copy of registration Tops Food Product, Photo copy tax assessment order 1992-93, photo copy of order dated June 25, 1996, copy of notice dated June 11,1995, copy of notice dated March 2, 1994, notice dated January 19, 1994, original postal receipt, copy of application addressed to the Joint Director, E.S.I., copy of the notice of E.S.I.C. dated May 13,1997, Original postal receipt, copy of notice dated May 15,1997, copy of notice dated April 12, 1997, photo copy or order dated April 23, 1996 by sales-tax officer. Besides these, the applicant has also produced 6 documents as per list 75 ga i.e. original electric consumer checking report-2, registration certificate of premises-2, original sales tax report-2. 6. The defendant has examined S.M. Meena as D. W. 1. In the documentary evidence, the defendant has produced paper No. 48 b and 49 c to 52 c. 7. On the pleadings of both the parties, following issues were framed: Vernacular matter omitted. 8. While deciding issue No. 1 as to whether the provisions of the E.S.I. Act are applicable on the applicant-firm and the applicant is liable to pay the contribution, the E.S.I. Tribunal has recorded the finding that both the firms in question are separate and they do not come under the provisions of E.S.I. Act and, therefore, the applicant is not liable to pay the contribution under the provisions of E.S.I. Act. The findings recorded by the E.S.I. Tribunal are quoted below: Vernacular matter omitted. 9. As will appear from the aforesaid finding that both the firms of the applicant are separate and it is unjust to compel the provisions of E.S.I. Act after clubbing both the firms as the 18 employees who have been shown to be employed in single firm are the employees of two different firms. Besides this, the sales-tax registration and electricity connections of both the firms are separate and, therefore, the E.S.I, contributions which have been demanded are invalid. 10. While deciding issue No. 2 as to whether the recovery of the defendant is null and void, E.S.I. Tribunal has recorded the finding that both the firms in question are separate and none of the firm carries more than 10 employees have been found working and, as such, no contribution can be recovered from the applicant and recovery against the applicant is null and void. 11. While deciding issue No. 3 with regard to relief, the E.S.I. Tribunal has recorded the finding that the provisions of the E.S.I. Act are not applicable on the applicant-firm and, therefore, he is entitled to get the decree of the reliefs as claimed. 12. I have perused the record and in agreement with the findings recorded by the E.S.I., Tribunal being findings of fact and, as such, to interference with the order and decree passed by the E.S.I. Tribunal is required under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act. 13. 12. I have perused the record and in agreement with the findings recorded by the E.S.I., Tribunal being findings of fact and, as such, to interference with the order and decree passed by the E.S.I. Tribunal is required under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act. 13. However, liberty is given to the appellant to take recourse to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with law if the provisions of Employees’ State Insurance Act are attracted. Subject to the aforesaid, appeal is dismissed with costs.