FA1249907270208.sxw 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 128 OF 2008 M/s. Decopride :: APPELLANT -: Versus :- Joint Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation :: RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri SN Dandekar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri MPM Pillai, Advocate for the respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM: B. P. Dharmadhikari, J. DATED: 27TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P. C. : 1. Heard. 2. The question sought to be raised by appellant is; whether the establishment of M/s. Pride Tailoring has been clubbed with the establishment of present appellant without due notice to it. It is contended that there is material difference between the inspection report prepared immediately on 01/4/1998 and prepared later on on 15/4/1998. It is being urged that number of employees found working on FA1249907270208.sxw 2/3 stitching machines on 01/4/1998 is not appearing in observation sheet prepared on 01/4/1998 and it has been added in the list prepared on 15/4/1998. 3. Advocate Shri Pillai, on the other hand, states that the learned Judge, Employees' Insurance Court has considered all the documents and also the evidence on record and thereafter has found that stitching machines were found in the establishment of the present appellant only and it was not other establishment at all. 4. With the assistance of both the Counsel I have perused observation sheet dated 01/4/1998 which mentions that there was display board of “Pride Tailoring Service” with name of the proprietor as; “Mrs. Prabha Devi Gandhi” and Pramod Gandhi stated that stitching machines were brought their for temporary period, they would be shifted somewhere else within a day or two. On 15/4/1998 E.S.I. Inspector has written a letter to Pramod Gandhi about this inspection dated 01/4/1998 and in it he has mentioned that these electrical sewing machines were being operated by establishment of appellant M/s Decopride only. The Employees' Insurance Court has found that said Inspector had prepared list of 11 employees mentioning their designation also and it included FA1249907270208.sxw 3/3 names of three tailors. Said list at Exh. 37 was put to witness for the appellant and he has accepted the same to be correct. In relation to tailoring establishment, learned Judge, E.S.I. Court has found that the said establishment was not not registered under any provision of law and, therefore, had no legal existence. 5. In this background contention of Advocate Shri Dandekar that there was no opportunity given to appellant in this respect appears to be incorrect. The challenge in application under Section 77 of Employees' State Insurance Act was in pursuance of communication dated 15/4/1998 issued by ESI Inspector to the appellant pointing out total number of employees as 11 and use of power for electrical sewing machines. The contention that there was separate establishment of Pride Tailoring is also not being substantiated in view of explanation given by Shri Pramod Gandhi on 01/4/1998 that machines were brought there temporarily and were to be shifted somewhere else. In view of this material and application of mind, no substantial question of law falls for determination in this appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE