: 1 : Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1461 OF 2007 FIRST APPEAL NO.1461 OF 2007 FIRST APPEAL NO.1461 OF 2007 IN IN IN APPLICATION (ESI) NO.149 OF 1990 APPLICATION (ESI) NO.149 OF 1990 APPLICATION (ESI) NO.149 OF 1990 Employees’ State Insurance . Corporation, Mumbai ...Appellant V/s. R.K. Madhani & Co. ...Respondent Mr.H.V. Mehta, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mr.D.A. Ahavale, Advocate, for the Respondent. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocates appearing for the parties. The learned Trial Judge has partly allowed the application made by the respondent under Section 75 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. An order was passed by the Appellate Court under Section 45-A of the said Act determining the contribution payable by the respondent at Rs.7,656/- for the period between April-1988 to September-1989. The finding of the learned Trial Judge is that the respondent will be liable to pay contribution amount from November-1985 till October-1986. The Trial Court has considered the entries made in O-1 form which was relied upon by the appellant. : 2 : 2. Submission of Mr.Mehta is that the Trial Court ought to have drawn adverse inference against the respondent for not producing the record relating to the employees engaged on the construction site. He invited my attention to the order dated 19th May, 1989. He submitted that as record was not produced by the respondent, the case made out by the appellant ought to have been accepted by drawing adverse inference against the respondent. 3. I have considered the submissions. I have gone through the compilation of the notes of evidence and other documents on record of the Trial Court. Perusal of the cross-examination of the partner of the respondent shows that not even a suggestion was given to him that he was possessing record relating to the employees working on the construction site. In the cross-examination of the Insurance Inspector of the appellant, he has admitted that during his three visits he found 5 to 6 employees employed by the respondent. 4. Considering the aforesaid aspects, no case for drawing an adverse inference against the respondent is : 3 : made out as it was not the stand taken by the appellant that the respondent was possessing the record and had withheld the same from the Court. There is no reason to interfere with the finding of the fact recorded by the Trial Court. No substantial question of law arises. First Appeal is accordingly dismissed. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]