THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.866 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal, under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, is directed against the order dated 24.11.2003 passed in E.I.Case No.56 of 2000 on the file of the Employees’ Insurance Court-cum-Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. M/s. N.C.S.Estate Private Limited (now known as N.C.S.Distillaries Private Limited), Chinabrahmadevam village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, represented by its Managing Director is the appellant and the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad, represented by its Regional Director is the respondent. It appears, being aggrieved by the proceedings dated 24.06.1999 issued by the respondent Corporation, whereby the appellant was made liable to pay the contribution and other dues demanded therein to the Corporation on the ground that it comes under the purview of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘the E.S.I.Act’), the appellant filed a case being E.I.Case No.56 of 2000 before the Employees’ Insurance Court-cum-Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the E.I.Case. It was the case of the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal that it does not come under the purview of E.S.I. Act, as it is located more than 15 kms. away from the E.S.I. Dispensary, and it was providing unlimited medical benefits, including medical reimbursement, to its employees. It was further stated that the petitioner factory was under closure due to prohibition of law, which was in force during the period from 16.01.1995 to 01.04.1997, and as it was running in loss, it comes under the sick unit and, therefore, the petitioner was not liable to pay the contribution as demanded by the Corporation vide its proceedings dated 24.06.1999. The Corporation filed written statement before the Tribunal denying the allegations made in the petition and stating that as per the Inspection Report dated 16.03.1992 submitted by the Inspector of the Corporation, who visited the petitioner factory on 16.03.1992, the petitioner factory is engaged in manufacturing alcohol with the aid of power and employed not less than 10 persons for wages and, therefore, the provisions of E.S.I. Act are applicable to the petitioner factory and the same was informed to it through letter dated 01.04.1992. It was further stated that as the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of the E.S.I. Act, the Corporation, after following due process of law, issued the show cause notice dated 10.11.1997 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.1,21,958/- should not be determined as contribution due from it for the period from 01.04.1995 to 31.12.1999 as provided under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act. The petitioner failed to respond either by assigning reasons or by availing the opportunity of personal hearing or by submitting statement showing the contribution payable for the period from 01.04.1995 to 31.12.1996 as per the records, and hence, the Corporation passed speaking order dated 21.06.1999, determining an amount of Rs.1,10,352/- payable by the petitioner as contribution, and the said order was communicated to the petitioner with a request to comply with the same. It was also stated that since the petitioner failed to comply with the speaking order, the Corporation was compelled to issue the Certificate of recovery to the Recovery Officer to recover the contribution due in accordance with Section 45(g) to (i) of the E.S.I. Act, from the petitioner factory, and the petitioner is liable to liable to pay the contribution and other dues as demanded by the respondent Corporation. On the basis of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1) Whether the petitioner is not liable to be covered under the E.S.I. Act? 2) Whether the petitioner is not liable to be covered under the E.S.I. Act as it situated more than 15 kms. from the E.S.I. Dispensary? 3) Whether the petitioner is not liable to pay any contribution as demanded in the order dated 24.06.1997? 4) To what relief?” On behalf of the petitioner, its Personal Officer was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. On behalf of the respondent Corporation, its Inspector (Legal) was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R7. After detailed consideration of the entire material available on record, with respect to issue Nos.1 and 2, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner is covered under the E.S.I. Scheme. So far as issue No.3 is concerned, it was held that the petitioner was liable to pay contribution to its employees, stated to have been employed by it during the prohibition period, and the claim made by the respondent Corporation against the petitioner relates to the period from 01.06.1995 to 31.12.1996 as was evident from the order marked as Ex.P2. Thus, by order dated 24.11.2003, the Tribunal dismissed E.I.Case No.56 of 2000 preferred by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that, firstly, the appellant factory does not come within the ambit of the provisions of the E.S.I. Act, and secondly, the appellant Factory is located 15 kms. away from E.S.I. Dispensary. Apart from this, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was providing all medical facilities to its employees and the appellant factory seized to be a factory by virtue of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, and therefore, the respondent Corporation has not followed the procedure as required under the law while issuing the proceedings dated 24.06.1999. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation supported the impugned order and stated that the appellant has not made out its case calling for interference of this Court. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the Tribunal has considered each and every aspect of the evidence and all the issues framed by it, and by furnishing cogent reasons, came to the conclusion that the appellant-petitioner has no case whatsoever. At paragraph 13 of the impugned order, the Tribunal recorded the following findings: “The petitioner did not file any record to show that there was no manufacturing activity in the factory from 15.1.1995 to 31.3.1997. Further they did not produce any record that the petitioner employed limited number of persons. No explanation is offered by the petitioner as to why they could not produce the records in proof of their contention that there was no manufacturing process from 1990 to 1994 and 1994 to 1997. However, as stated above, P.W.1 admitted during his cross-examination that the petitioner has employed essential staff during that period. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay contribution on those employees. The claim made by the Respondent-Corporation against the petitioner relates to the period from 1.6.1995 to 31.12.96 as is evident from Ex.P2 Sec.45-A order. This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.” From the aforesaid findings, it is clear that except filing self- serving statement, no evidence whatsoever has been placed by the appellant-petitioner before the Tribunal to show that it is not covered under the E.S.I. Act. Further, it is clear that the appellant-petitioner has not offered any explanation as to why it could not produce the relevant records in proof of its contention that there was no manufacturing process in its factory from 1990 to 1994 and from 1994 to 1997. The findings of the Tribunal would suffice to show that the appeal has no merits whatsoever. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal, and the civil miscellaneous appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 05.08.2010 v v