THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.2114 of 2002 JUDGMENT: The respondent is an industrial undertaking, having its Head Office at Hyderabad. It has executed some works of construction particularly fitting of doors, etc. in Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam and other places. It is covered by the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’) and was paying contribution from time to time. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent by the Inspectors of the Corporation demanding a sum of Rs.3,90,066/-, as contribution, for the period from April to December, 1990, on 04.06.1998, under Section 45 of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed E.I. Case No.20 of 1999 in the Employees’ State Insurance Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). It was pleaded that the demand made by the appellant is barred by limitation, and it was made on imaginary basis and that the workers, in respect of which, the contribution was demanded, were deployed at places, which are not notified under the Act. The appellant filed counter-affidavit, opposing the application. The details of the steps taken by them, against the respondent, were indicated and the demand was sought to be justified. The Tribunal framed as many as nine issues. Through its judgment, dated 31.08.2001, the Tribunal held issues 1 and 3 in favour of the respondent and remanded the matter on other issues to the appellant- Corporation for fresh consideration and disposal. The same is challenged in this appeal, filed under Section 82 of the Act. Sri William Burra, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that though the respondent was paying contribution for some of the employees, it committed default in respect of employees that were engaged at other places. He contends that in spite of repeated demands, the respondent did not furnish the relevant particulars and ultimately by invoking the provisions of the Act, it came to be made. He assails the findings of the Tribunal on issues 1 and 3. According to him, even if the workers are deployed at a place which is not covered by the provisions of the Act, the employer would be liable to pay contribution for them, once it is established that the Head Office is located at a place, which is covered under the Act. He places reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Transport Corporation of India v. E.S.I Corporation[1]. He further submits that the demand was very much within limitation. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the officials of the appellant have acted in a very high handed manner, as is evident from the averments made in the counter filed before the Tribunal. He contends that the Managing Director of the appellant, who, as a law abiding citizen, not only paid the contribution, but also cooperated, in all respects, was treated as a criminal, so much so, a criminal case was registered and the Office was raided with police. He submits that the appellant did not respect the circular issued by the Government of India, dated 31.03.2000, and the demand was made purely on imagination just to harass the respondent. He contends that the findings recorded by the Tribunal do not warrant interference. The Act was enacted by the Parliament, as a welfare measure for the employees. To create facilities for the workers employed in the establishments covered by the Act, the Corporation is created and power is conferred upon it, to determine the contribution and to recover the same. The respondent herein is covered by the provisions of the Act and contribution was being made from time to time. In case the officials of the appellant came to know that the respondent omitted or failed to make contribution for workers engaged by it, they could have certainly initiated steps under the Act. The power is conferred upon them to verify from the workers for whom no contribution is paid or to require other particulars. In case it becomes necessary, records can also be verified duly issuing notice. If one goes by the contents of the counter-affidavit, filed by the appellant itself before the Tribunal, a horrifying situation emerges. The Managing Director of the respondent is a woman and in the name of verifying the records, the officials of the Corporation virtually raided that Office by taking police force. The assistance of Superintendent of Police was taken and Crime No.120 of 1998 was registered. This Court takes serious exception to the manner in which the officials have behaved and holds that their conduct in unbecoming, of a public employee. It is obviously, on account of the conduct and behaviour of such employees in different organizations, that the industries are being closed one after the other and today hardly any industrial activity is existing. Coming to the merits of the matter, the demand notice issued by the appellant hardly contained any details. It was issued just on the basis of guess work. It was mentioned that the workers were employed at Gujarat and other places. The attention of the Tribunal was drawn to a notification issued by the Government of India in the year 2000. It is to the effect that even if the Head Office of an organization is situated in an area covered by the provisions of the Act, in case the construction activity is undertaken at places not covered by the Act, contribution shall not be recovered. The appellant just refused to go by this and for them the circular is of no value. The intention appears to be to harass the respondent in one-way, or the other. They were not satisfied even after the Tribunal has remanded the matter for its consideration on various aspects. This Court does not countenance the highhandedness exhibited by the respondent. Hence, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:05.08.2010 GJ [1] 2000 LAB I.C. 203