1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL UNDER E. S. I. NO. 6 OF 2009 M/s Penton Technology A proprietary concern of Mr. Parshottam L. Bagga, represented by its attorney Mr. Vijay Dikwalkar r/o. R. C. Patel Chawl, Room No.4, Behram Bag Road, Jogeshwari (W) Mumbai – 400 102. .. Appellant. Versus Regional Director, employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchadeep Bhavan, Panaji, Goa. .. Respondent. Mr. Vijay Palekar, Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. A. A. Agni, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM :- U. D. SALVI, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 8 th January, 2010. DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 12 th January, 2010. ORDER : This is an appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 against the order dated 19.01.2009 passed by the E.S.I. Court, Panaji, Goa. 2. Section 82 of the E. S. I. Act, 1948 requires 2 substantial question of law to be debated in the appeal. The Trial Court declined to hold that the appellant/ applicant's establishment having registered office at Mumbai and factory at Kundaim, Goa is not covered under the E.S.I. Act, 1948 and consequently the impugned notices/ orders under Section 18-C dated 30.09.2002 are bad in law. In the initial round of the appeal, the appeal under E.S.I. No.4/2007 preferred by the Employees State Insurance Corporation against the order in favour of the present appellant M/s. Penton Technology, this Court had remanded the matter back to the E.S.I. Court for the purpose of considering material documents having bearing on the question of functional integrality of the registered office at Mumbai and factory at Kundaim. The Trial Court on applying its mind afresh to the material placed before it, particularly letters date 6.12.1997 Exh.59 and letter dated 15.06.1998 Exh.60 written by the proprietor of the appellant to the Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Goa held that there existed a functional integrality between the registered head office at Mumbai and factory at Kundaim. 3. On this background, learned Advocate Palekar for the appellant raises the following questions as the substantial 3 questions of law requiring debate in the proposed appeal : a) Whether the Learned Judge has misconstrued the misread the document, namely the letter dated 6.12.1997 ? b) Whether the misconstruction of the document has resulted in miscarriage of justice ? c) Whether in the guise of liberal interpretation, a document which is silent on an issue, could be construed contrary to the evidence on record ? d) Whether the Judgment and order dated 19.01.2009 suffer from perversity ? He argued that the statements appearing in the letter dated 6.12.1997 Exh.59 do not make it a case in favour of the E.S.I. Corporation as the Corporation is required to establish the fact of functional integrality between the registered office and the factory independently. To highlight the concept of functional and financial integrality between the two units, he relied upon the judgment reported in ILLJ 1960 497- Pratap Press Etc. Versus their workmen, 1999(III) (Supp) Bombay 300- Joint Regional Director E.S.I.C Versus L. D. Bhave and sons, (2000)1 SCC 332 - Transport Corporation of India 4 Versus Employees State Insurance Corporation and another, 2006(4) LLN 339- India Motor Parts and Accesorieis Ltd., Madras Versus Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madras. 4. Learned Advocate Mrs. Agni for the E.S.I. Corporation pointed out from the evidence that letters Exh.59 and 60 were of the making of the appellant concern, the truth of which was not questioned by the appellant; and only witness AW1 Mr. Vijay Dikwalkar examined by the appellant/ applicant always worked as an Accountant in the establishment at Mumbai, who could not elaborate much on the work in the establishment at Kundaim and, therefore, she submitted, the letters Exh.59 and 60 outweighed all other evidence on record. She further pointed out that enclosure with the letter Exh.59 under the hand of the proprietor of the appellant concern clearly shows that the factory at Kundaim was limb and appendage of the appellant concern having its registered office at Mumbai in as much as the payments were made and the records were kept at Mumbai office and the factory was to be run by local chief Mrs. Linda. 5. It can be seen further from the affidavit in 5 evidence of AW1 Vijay Dikwalkar that the applicant was engaged in the business of manufacturing of pens and for the purpose of running its factory, the appellant / applicant had taken the premises on hire purchase basis at Goa. What distinct and independent business the appellant/ applicant carried out at Mumbai office is not clear from the evidence though the facts regarding this ought to have been clearly spelt out in the evidence by the appellant/ applicant. As regards the judgments cited on behalf of the appellant it needs only to be observed that the issue of clubbing of different establishments is required to be decided having regard to the facts of each case and the said judgments are of little assistance to the appellant in that regard. 6. The learned Trial Court, therefore, cannot be blamed either of misconstruction of the document and material placed before it nor of perversity as sought to be contended by the appellant/ applicant. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. U. D. SALVI, J. SMA