FA/3022/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 3022 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION - Appellant(s) Versus RENOWN CASTING COMPANY - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SACHIN D VASAVADA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR KM PAUL for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 29/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-Employees State Insurance Corporation has challenged the judgment and order dated FA/3022/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT 7/2/2008 passed by the Judge, ESI Court No.1, Rajkot in ESI Application No.19 of 1990. 2. Insurance Inspector visited the appellant Corporation on 4/11/1988. In pursuance of the same the appellant issued C-18 notice dated 21/8/1989 to the respondent and thereafter, the appellant passed order under Section 45A of the Act on 11/9/1989 to recover the contribution to the tune of Rs.23,734/- with interest of Rs.522.80. 3. Against the aforesaid order the respondent filed ESI Application No.19 of 1990 which came to be allowed. Hence, this appeal. 4. The Corporation has contended that all the four firm have common partners situated in common premises and they are legal one and therefore, referred to be clubbed and they are required to be clubbed under the ESI Court. 5. The learned Judge has discussed all the relevant points of law and after relying upon the decision of different High Courts has held that the accounts of the firms are different and their existence is different and none of the firm is depending on the other. Merely on the ground of common partners, all the firms cannot be clubbed. In para 15 of the order, the learned Judge has discussed in detail the evidence. FA/3022/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT 6. I am in complete agreement with the judgment and order passed by the ESI Court. The learned advocate is not able to point anything contrary to take a different view of the matter. No interference is required to be called for. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (ila)