Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 223 (RAJ)

Maruti Textile Mils v. Empolye State Insurance

2021-01-28

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30/04/2002 passed by Employees' State Insurance Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the Court below'), whereby the application filed by the appellant against the demand raised by Employees' State Insurance Corporation has been rejected. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on the inspection being conducted at the factory of the appellant, it was found that more than ten persons were working in the factory of the appellant and they were involved in colouring and dyeing of the cloths. At the time of inspection, it was also found that an electric motor was fitted for pumping the water. In the circumstances, the appellant was served a notice for depositing the Employees' State Insurance Amount on the count that the premises of the appellant would fall in the category of ^factory' having more than 10 employees in terms of Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. At the same time, the Competent Officer of the Department prepared an inspection report. 3. While assailing the validity of the notice and the order passed by the Employees' State Insurance Officers, the appellant preferred an application before the Court below. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, learned Court below framed three issues. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, learned Court below passed the impugned order rejecting the application preferred by the appellant. Hence, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the findings recorded by Court below are perverse. As per the cross-examination of the inspector Suresh Chand Kaushik who prepared the report, it is not clear whether more than 10 persons were working in the factory. He further submits that the names of the persons concerned who were allegedly working in the factory have been mentioned without there being any details of their fathers' name and the addresses. He further submits that even in the impugned order, there is no discussion with respect to the certainty of the fact that ten or more persons were working in the factory of the appellant on the date of inspection. He further submits that the order impugned is non-speaking and lacunic on the face of record. 6. He further submits that even in the impugned order, there is no discussion with respect to the certainty of the fact that ten or more persons were working in the factory of the appellant on the date of inspection. He further submits that the order impugned is non-speaking and lacunic on the face of record. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that learned Court below has evaluated the evidence, which has been brought on record, in the correct perspective and after appreciation of the same, a finding of fact has been recorded in the present case which does not suffer from any infirmity on the face of record. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the material available on record. 8. For brevity, Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 is reproduced as under:- "Factory" means any premises including the precincts thereof whereon ten or more persons are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on or is ordinarily so carried on, but does not include a mine subject to the operation of the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952) or a railway running shed." 9. The Court below, while rejecting the application preferred by the appellant has recorded the finding on the issue No.1 which reads as under:- 10. A bare look of the findings of fact recorded on issue No.1, it is clear that learned Court below has taken into consideration the statements of the Inspector and those persons who were working at the time of inspection and has correctly come to the conclusion that there is no infirmity in the report of the Inspector on the date of inspection. Merely because the fathers' name and addresses of those persons were absent on the date of inspection would not make the report unbelievable. More particularly, in view of statements of two persons i.e. Moola Ram and Magaram who have stated in their statements that on the date of inspection, the persons named therein were not working, show that the report reflected the names of ten persons who used to work in the factory but on that particular date, they were absent. More particularly, in view of statements of two persons i.e. Moola Ram and Magaram who have stated in their statements that on the date of inspection, the persons named therein were not working, show that the report reflected the names of ten persons who used to work in the factory but on that particular date, they were absent. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the persons named in the statements of Moola Ram and Magaram were not working at all. 11. In view of the observations made above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Court below on issue No.1. 12. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.