THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.2184 of 2002 JUDGMENT: The petitioner is a manufacturer of drilling bits and other allied products. Apart from manufacturing the items, it also markets through its depots at Secunderabd and Banglore. The workers engaged in the manufacturing unit are already covered by the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act (for short ‘the Act’). The Inspector of the respondents-organisation visited the units of the petitioner on 16.08.1995 and took the view that the employees working in the branch offices at Banglore and Secunderabd are also liable to be covered under the Act. Accordingly, notices were issued from time to time and consequently, an order was passed on 18.11.1999 under Section 45-A of the Act. The appellant filed E.I. Case No.21 of 2000 before the Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad. It was alleged that no employees as such are posted in the depots and the employees working in the manufacturing unit themselves go and deliver the goods at the depots. The case was opposed by the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the case through order, dated 28.01.2002. Hence, this appeal under Section 82(2) of the Act. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. The appellant is already brought under the purview of the Act, as regards employees that are engaged in manufacturing unit. The dispute is only about the coverage of the employees working in the depots and others offices at Banglore and Secunderabad. After visiting the units and requiring the appellant to furnish the particulars, the Inspector of the Corporation opined that 15 employees are engaged in the depots and they are also liable to be covered. The appellant did not respond to the queries and almost ex parte proceedings had to be initiated. Since the appellant did not dispute that it is running depots at Banglore and Secunderabd, it is but natural that employees are engaged in the depots. If the number of employees fell short of the minimum stipulated under the Act, the contention of the appellant could have been accepted. That would have been possible only by placing relevant records, such as attendance register, wage register, ledger etc. By pleading an excuse, the appellant did not place those records before the respondents. Therefore, an inference was drawn both as regards number employees and their wages. Even before the trial Court, the appellant did not furnish any particulars which contradict the conclusions arrived at by the respondents. Only P.W.1, an employee, who was not posted with the full facts was examined and the record was not placed on the pretext that it was seized by the Central Excise Department. Under these circumstances, the trial Court was also left with no alternative, except to dismiss the case of the appellant and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are certain errors in the facts and figures furnished in the impugned proceedings. If that be so, even now, the appellant can make necessary representation and substantiate its contention with reference to the relevant record. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 19.08.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.2184 of 2002 Date: 19.08.2010 JSU