IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.AO. No. 329 of 1986 Date of Decision : December 18, 2008 Modern Food Industries (India) Limited .....Appellant Versus Employees State Insurance Corporation and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for respondent No. 1. None for respondent No. 2. T.P.S. MANN, J. Petition under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, filed by the appellant for challenging the assessment order passed by respondent No. 1 under Section 45A of the Act, was dismissed by E.S.I. Court, Chandigarh on 27.1.1986 which order stands challenged by way of appeal under Section 82 of the Act. In its petition, the appellant had stated that it had entered into a railway booking and forwarding contract with Rajinder Kumar, F.AO. No. 329 of 1986 -2 - Proprietor, Him Soft Drinks-respondent No. 2, who used to book and forward the appellant's goods, i.e. bread, from Kalka, besides supplying some packing material to the appellant. Said respondent did not carry out any function in the premises of the appellant. A letter dated 28.9.1983 was received by the appellant from respondent No.1, i.e. Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), which was replied by the appellant. On 26.11.1984, the appellant received a letter from the Collector, Chandigarh from which it learnt that its plea stood rejected by the Corporation and the amount assessed under Section 45A of the Act had to be paid by the appellant. The said assessment was illegal and unlawful. In its reply, the Corporation averred that the appellant had given a copy of the agreement at the time of inspection, which the appellant had entered into with respondent No. 2 and in view of the same, the appellant was liable to pay contribution because the packing was done in the factory and even if some process was carried out outside the factory, that was under the supervision of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant, being the principal employer, was liable to pay contribution. Respondent No. 2 also filed a written statement wherein it was stated that no part of the contractual obligations was carried out in F.AO. No. 329 of 1986 -3 - the premises of the appellant and the entire work done at Kalka over which the appellant had no control . Learned Insurance Court, on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to receive the amount in dispute from the petitioner. OPP. 2. Whether Col. Sukhjit Singh is competent to file the present petition. OPP. 3. Relief. After going through the evidence, Court below held that the Corporation was entitled to recover the amount of contribution from the appellant. The petition under Section 75 of the Act was, accordingly, dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence with their able assistance. The most relevant document on record is the terms and conditions of the tender floated by the appellant for engaging the booking and forwarding contract. Same is, Ex. R3, which is proved by Hardial Singh-RW1. Col. Sukhjit Singh, General Manager of the F.AO. No. 329 of 1986 -4 - Corporation, while appearing as PW1 admitted his signatures at point 'A' on the same. Para 5 of Ex. R3 provided for depositing interest free cash security of Rs. 5,000/- by the Contractor-respondent No. 2. Alongwith Ex. R3 was Schedule mark 'A'. It was mentioned therein that respondent No. 2 would do the entire process of packing and loading in the factory premises of the appellant. In such a situation, the version of the appellant could not be accepted that it had no control over the working of respondent No. 2 and it was not its duty to know if respondent No. 2 had employed any member or not in carrying out his duties as booking and forwarding contract. In his testimony, Col. Sukhjit Singh PW1 only stated that respondent No. 2 used to come to his factory only for collecting the payment and not for any other purpose. According to the appellant, it used to transport its goods to respondent No. 2 for further transmission to different places after packing the same, therefore, the appellant had no connection with the labour employed by respondent No. 2- Contractor. However, PW1 admitted his signatures on Ex. R1, which was a report prepared by Hardial Singh-RW1 at the time of inspection of the record of the appellant, the said report having been prepared by him correctly from the record shown to him. Col. Sukhjit Singh also admitted his signatures on Ex. R2, which he handed over to Hardial Singh-RW1, as per which packing was to be done in the premises of the appellant by the Contractor and, thereafter, the packed material to F.AO. No. 329 of 1986 -5 - be despatched to Kalka. The contract included the packing of material, loading and unloading. Thus, it stands established from testimony of Col. Sukhjit Singh-PW1 that respondent No. 2 had been packing the material in the premises of the appellant. Once the aforementioned conclusions are drawn, the appellant was legally and validly required to pay the contribution in respect of the amount of wages and the amounts shown under the head 'packing and forwarding charges'. The same had been done in the present case by the Corporation by passing the assessment order under Section 45A of the Act. Resultantly, there is no merit in the appeal, which is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. ( T.P.S. MANN ) December 18, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether referred to the Reporters : YES / NO