HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.463 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous appeal under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’), is directed against an order dated 14/03/2005 made in E.I.C.No.2 of 2002 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, whereunder the case filed by the respondent, being aggrieved by the order issued by the appellant herein under Section 45-A of the Act directing the respondent to pay Rs.19,520/- towards contribution for the period from 01/10/1992 to 30/09/2000, was allowed and it was declared that the respondent was not coverable under the provisions of the Act, therefore, he is not liable to pay contribution. The impugned notice dated 14/08/2000 and 31/01/2001 was set aside. It appears the respondent was issued with notice dated 14/08/2000 and 31/01/2001 directing to pay an amount of Rs.19,520/- towards contribution for the period from 01/10/1992 to 30/09/2000. Aggrieved thereby, E.I.C.No.2 of 2002 was filed. After noting the pleadings, the following points were framed for determination: 1) Whether the dispute is barred by limitation? 2) Whether the petitioner is coverable? 3) Whether the petitioner is liable to pay contribution? On behalf of the respondent/petitioner, he examined himself as P.W.1 and marked documents Exs.P- 1 to P-11 whereas on behalf of the appellant/respondent R.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and documents Exs.R- 1 to R-20 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire evidence on record, it was held that the dispute is not barred by limitation and the petitioner/respondent herein was not coverable and therefore, he is not liable to pay any contribution. In this regard, it is suffice to notice the findings recorded by the Tribunal below at para 12.04 which reads as under: “While so, Ex.P-1 is the visit note prepared by corporation official disclosing that the petitioner ha engaged only 7 employees throughout from 10/908 to 4/99 while so, on 14/07/1998 Ex.R-11 is prepared wherein it is stated that petitioner has employed 12 as on 28/05/1980 and 23/03/1998 as per the first inspector report and inspection reports of inspectors of factories connected documents are not produced. Ex.P-2 another observation slips of the ESI Corporation as not disclosing that the petitioner has appointed 10 or 12 persons at any point of time. While so, Ex.P-3 is attested by factories official and this for the month of 6/2001 and it is not useful. Whether the petitioner has appointed 12 persons on 23/03/1980 and 23/03/1998 and whether this facts are disclosing through any earlier inspection reports Ex.R-1 is for the period from 10/1998 to 10/1990 and it is disclosing that the petitioner engaged 7, 8, 9 employees only land not 12 and Ex.R-5 is another enquiry report for the visit of inspector on 11/10/1996 and it is also disclosing that the petitioner has appointed only 8 persons and so also Ex.R-6, Ex.R-7 and Ex.R-8 are the visit note of the ESI Officers and according to the petitioner he has appointed less than 10 persons. And Ex.R-9 is also the enquiry report of the ESI Official disclosing the petitioner has appointed only 8 persons in the year 1993. Whereas Ex.R-12 is the inspector’s report wherein it is mentioned 12 persons are appointed on contract basis and the names of those 12 persons are not noted and according to this report only 12 persons are appointed on contract basis and it is not based on the report of the inspectors of factories. Thus, the supportive document Ex.R-11 to prove that the petitioner is engaged 12 persons either on 28/05/1980 or 23/03/1998 is not produced before the Court and all other documents of the corporation are disclosing that the petitioner engaging only 7, 8, 9 persons in the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not coverable under the provisions of the Act.” From the above, it is seen that even the evidence of the appellant/respondent was only to the extent that the respondent herein engaged only 7, 8 or 9 persons and absolutely there was no supportive document to prove that the petitioner/respondent engaged more than 12 persons either on 28/05/1980 or 23/03/1998. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not erred in allowing the petition holding that the respondent/petitioner herein is not coverable under the provisions of the Act since he has never engaged more than 9 persons at any point of time and thus accordingly, petition was allowed. I am of the opinion that the Tribunal had not committed any error in allowing E.I.C.No.2 of 2002. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 01st July, 2010 SKM