1 60-fa.524.11 anr ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 524 OF 2011 WITH FIRST APPEAL (stamp) NO. 29862 OF 2008 The Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation. ... Appellant Versus M/s. Chitralaya Exhibitors (India). ... Respondent ----- Mr. H.V.Mehta for the Appellant. Mr. R.S.Pai and Mr.Hemant Telkar i/b Haresh Mehta and Company for the Respondent. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 02 nd May, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. 2 The challenge in these appeals is to the orders passed by the learned Judge of the Employees' Insurance Court at Mumbai on application under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The challenge in the 2 60-fa.524.11 anr application under Section 75 of the said Act was to the order passed under Section 45-A of the said Act. 3 The Respondent had taken a cinema theatre of M/s.Liberty Cinema on conducting basis. There is a canteen in the cinema theatre, which was initially given to M/s.Cathay Theatres Private Limited on conducting basis. The canteen is now being run by M/s.Hoosein Enterprises. 4 By the impugned order, the orders passed under Section 45- A of the said Act have been set aside on the ground that the M/s.Cathay Theatres Private Limited had filed O-1 from on 10 th May, 1978 disclosing the number of employees in the canteen and the other particulars. 5 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Royal Talkies, Hyderabad and others Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation through its Regional Director, Hill Fort Road, 3 60-fa.524.11 anr Hyderabad (AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1478). He submitted that the canteen is an integral part of the theatre and therefore, the owner of the cinema is liable as principal employer for payment contribution towards the employees of the canteen. 6 In the present case, the factual position which emerges is that M/s.Liberty Cinema is the owner of the cinema theatre and the Respondent was given right to conduct the business in the cinema theatre. There is evidence on record to show that the owners M/s.Liberty Cinema had allowed M/s.Cathay Theatres Private Limited to conduct the canteen in the theatre premises. As stated earlier, M/s.Cathay Theatres Private Limited filed O-1 form with the Appellant. The said M/s.Cathay Theatres Private Limited has given canteen to M/s.Hoosein Enterprises for running the same on conducting basis. 7 In view of this factual situation which is found on evidence, it was held that the Respondent was not liable to pay contribution towards the employees engaged in the canteen. By the impugned order, liberty 4 60-fa.524.11 anr has been given to the Appellant to proceed to determine the contribution against M/s.Cathay Theatres Private Limited or M/s.Hoosein Enterprises. 8 In view of the findings of fact, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Royal Talkies, Hyderabad and others (supra) will have no application. There is no substantial question of law. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, J ]