39 4 FOeNoe293 of 1988 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNOAB 8 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision 2 July 2011 1 1 L FAO No93 of 1988 0 U I EmployeesState Insurance Corporation through its Regional 0 Director and another I Versus Z Mls Suraj Bread Factory and others aeaeeeRespondents m 0 CORAM HONBLE MRJSTICE MOHINDER PALe Z 1 Whether Reportersof Local papers may be allowed to see C the judgment7 mvo 2 To be referred to the Reportersor not7 Z 3 Whether the judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest7 Qe Present MrRS Sidhu Advocate for Mr BS Bhalla Advocate for the appellants MrJaspreetSinghAhluwalia Advocate for respondentsNos l to 3 MOHINDER PAL Je Employees State Insurance Corporationthrough its RegionalDirector lereinafter referred to as the appellant . Anita 2012.09.19 11: 07 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 40 l FAeOeNo93 of 1988e CorporationlIS aggrieved againstthe order dated 14 121987 passedby the Senior Sub Judge Exercising the powers of State Insurance Cour Bathinda lereinafter referred to as the Insurance Courtl whereby petitionfiled by MlsSuraj m tr BreadFactory lereinafter referred to as the againstthe order dated 1621985 passed by the Assistant 0 0 RegionalDirector of the appellaneCorporationordering the I C5 respondentFactoryto pay a sum of Rs41084 as contribution I amount with effect from May 1983 to September 1984 along with interest was allowed with costs which were assessed at Z Rs1001 C I have heard the Iearned counsel for the appellante I and the respondentFactoryand have gone through C3 Z the order passedby the Insurance Court which has been impugnedIll this appeal The Assistant RegionalDirector of the appellant f Corporationhad not afforded reasonable opportunity of being mn Z heard to the before passing the assessment order dated 1621985 requiring the respondentFactory to pay a sum of Rs541084 as contribution amount with effect from May 1983 to September l 984 a Iong with interest The authoritypassingthe order dated 1621985 oughtto have heard the respondentFactory on the point whether the number of employeesin the respondentFactoryhad alwaysremained below 20 and it respondentFactorylid not fell within the definition of FactorYras contemplated under Section 2 12 of the FactoryAct The appellantCorporationbefore the Insurance Court did not . Anita 2012.09.19 11: 07 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 41 0 e FeAeO Noe293 of 1988 summon any witness from the PunjabState Electricity Board to prove that the respondentFactory had been using the power in manufacturlngbread Further no evidence was Ied by the before the Insurance Court that the respondentFactory had been sanctioned commerciai connection 0 to run bread cutting machine The Insurance Court under the Cs circumstances was justified tn holding that the respondent C9 Factory was entitled to the protectionof principlesof natural I justice and and it espondentFactoryl ought to have been Z afforded an opportunityto show cause against the order dated 1621985 and this order should not have been passed atthe back of the I In view of the above I do not find any ground C3 Z warranting interference in the impugned Award passed by the Commissioner This appealis accordinglyherebydismissed QO 3 6 Z PALI July f1 2011 JUDGE 1 Om ak J 4 1 Il It 1 1 . Anita 2012.09.19 11: 07 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document