HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Memo of Appeal under uls 82 12} of the Employees State Insurance Actl 1948 Present:- Appellant by Shri S.P.Kale, learned counsel. Respondents by Shri Kshitiz Sharma, learned counsel. O R A L O R D E R (Passed on 16.11.2007) Heard. 2. This appeal raises the following substantial question of law: “Whether the lower Court was justified in holding thsat the employer was not responsible for making a contribution payable by the employer under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 for the period from 16.08.1995 to 31.12.1996 on the ground that the inspection of the industry concerned was carried out on 4.5.1995 i.e. prior to coming into the force of the Act?” 3.‘ It is not in dispute that the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made operational to the area wherein the industry of respondent No.1 is situated by a notification issued under Section 1 sub-clause (3) of the Act from 16.08.1995. It is also not iw .,V .\ / No.123 of App‘ellant Employees State Insurance Corpo. Officer ESI Cor. 'Noni—AQQeIlant Through — Recovery Nanda Nagar, Indore 1" Panchdeep Bhawan MP. Versus Resigondents : 1. M/s Aarya Electricals, 740, F-Urla Chhetra,RaipurC.G. App‘licant / , Aydyogik Arora S/o K.S.Arora, u ~ Through — Vivek C.S.E.B. Colony Dagania, Niyojak Partner, Raipur C.G. h Bank of Indore, Non-AQQIicant . 2. Branch Manager, State Raipur C.G. No.2 = . ‘ Opp. Rajkurhar College, Court, Labour ' 3. Employees Insurance Court, Court, Raipur C.G. that inspection of industry owned by the respondent No.1 was carried out by the Inspector of the Employees State Insurance Corporation on 04.05.1995. The Iiability of the employer to pay contribution under Section 4O of the Act and to furnish returns and to maintain registers in certain cases under Section 44 of the Act arises from the date from which the Act is made applicable to such an industry. Similarly, an inspector appointed by the Employees State lnsurance Corporation acquires the right to enter any office establishment, factory or other premises occupied by a principal or immediate employer from the"‘date of commencement of the Act. Sub- section (2) of Section 45 of the Act makes it clear that an Inspector may, for the purpose of ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act have been “complied with, proceed to act under sub-clauses (a) to (e) of sub- section (2) of Section 45 of the Act. In this view of the matter, l am of the o ’ cnsidered opinion that recovery of contribution on the basis of an inspection carried out by the Inspector before the commencement of thiS‘Act could not be sustained in the eye of law. Thus, the order passed by the lower Court cannot be faulted with. The question of law framed by this Court is answered against the appellant in the negative. Sdl- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. l l