-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.1764 OF 2005 APPEAL NO.1764 OF 2005 APPEAL NO.1764 OF 2005 The Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation ...Appellant Vs. M/s.Kalyani Enterprises ...Respondent Mr.H.V.Mehta for the Appellant Ms Meena H. Doshi for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: APRIL 21,2006. APRIL 21,2006. APRIL 21,2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocates for the parties. The challenge in the Appeal is to the Judgment and Order dated 12th November 2003 passed by the learned Judge of the Employees Insurance Court, Pune. The impugned Judgment and order has been passed in an application made by the Respondent under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The order was passed for recovery of a sum of Rs.14,442/-. The learned Trial Judge has allowed the said application. 2. It is not in dispute that under the provisions of section 82 of the said Act, an Appeal is maintainable to this Court only on a substantial question of law. 3. Perusal of the impugned Judgment and Order shows that the -2- learned Judge has considered the evidence of Vilas B. Jadhav on behalf of the Respondent and one Pramila S. Ray on behalf of the Appellant. The learned Judge held that the contribution claimed by the Appellant-Corporation under Section 45-A of the said Act cannot be said to be legal. In paragraph 18 of the Judgement, the learned Judge has held that if all the evidence is considered, it is clear that the contribution claimed by the Appellant on the stitching charges is not legal as the stitching work was not being done within the premises of the Respondent and the work was not supervised by the Respondent. 4. The findings recorded by the learned Judge in paragraph 18 of its Judgment are based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record. The learned Judge referred to the cross examination of the witness examined by the Appellant. The learned Judge observed that though the said witness Pramila stated that the work of getting the clothes stitched from outside was supervised by the Respondent, she admitted that she had not visited the place where the work of stitching was being done. Apart from the finding of the learned Judge on limitation, the impugned order has been passed in favour of the Respondent mainly on the ground that there was no evidence on record to show that the Respondent was supervising the work of stitching which was done outside the premises held by the Respondent. A finding is also -3- recorded that no stitching work was done within the premises of the Respondent and the same was done outside the premises through other persons. 5. In view of the findings of fact which are recorded on the basis appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record by the learned Judge, no case is made out for interference. No substantial question of law arises. First Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Judge. Judge. Judge.