THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1235 of 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act (for short ‘the Act’) is filed against the order, dated 06.02.2001, passed by the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in E.I. Case No.72 of 1998. The respondents issued a notice requiring the appellant to produce the record for the period between 1981 and 1994. Ultimately, an order was passed on 29.09.1998 proposing to recover a sum of Rs.3,37,683/- for the period between 1981 and 1998. Feeling aggrieved by that, the appellant filed the E.I. Case under Section 75(1)(g) of the Act. It was pleaded that the number of persons employed by the appellant never exceeded nine and though proceedings were initiated against M/s. Asian Enterprises, the appellant herein, Asian Bakery and Asian Dry-Cleaners, Separate proceedings are initiated against the appellant once again. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit was filed opposing the case. According to them, all the agencies named above are held by the same individuals and that they deserved to be clubbed in the context of bringing them under the purview of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the case through order, dated 06.02.2001. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents have proceeded against various institutions, in which the appellant was also clubbed and in that view of the matter, there was no basis for them to proceed against the appellant independently and individually. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the appellant failed to produce the relevant record and the order, dated 29.09.1998 was passed after taking into account the relevant record and facts of the case. The respondents initiated proceedings against M/s. Asian Enterprises for recovery of contribution. The said agency raised a plea that the number of persons employed by it did not exceed the minimum stipulated under the Act and it was not covered by the provisions of the Act. That plea was repelled by the respondents stating that various agencies held by the same individuals and being run in the names of Asian Enterprises, Asian Hotels, Asian Bakery and Asian Dry-Cleaners are liable to be treated as a single unit and since the number of persons employed in all of them exceeded to stipulated minimum, they are liable to make contributions. This plea was accepted by the Tribunal as well as this Court in the earlier rounds of litigation. Had the impugned order been passed against Asian Enterprises, it would not have been open to them to raise the plea that they are not covered by the provisions of the Act. The respondents, however, have decided to proceed against the appellant, which was already covered under the earlier set of proceedings that were initiated against Asian Enterprises. Once the appellant was treated as part of the same establishment and proceedings were initiated against one such subsidiary, by name Asian Enterprises, it is not open to the respondents to proceed against the appellant. If such a course is permitted, it would amount to collecting contribution twice in respect of the employees, once in the name of Asian Enterprises, and on the other occasion, in the name of the appellant i.e. Asian Hotel. The Tribunal failed to note this subtle difference and proceeded as though the earlier proceedings were initiated against the appellant itself. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:08.11.2011. kdl