IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA NO.48 OF 2009 STATE ( THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION THROUGH THE INSURANCE INSPECTOR (LEGAL) EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAWAN, J.L.NEHRU MARG, PATNA) VERSUS 1. MRS.ANITA BHADANI, WIFE OF SRI MAHENDRA PRASAD, PROPRIETOR OF M/S ARRAY TAILORS 2. M/S ARAY TAILORS, B-35, KHETAN MARKET, BIRLA MANDIR ROAD, PATNA-1 ……………………………………….. ACCUSED PERSONS/RESPONDENTS ********* 2 01/05/2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-The Employees State Insurance Corporation. This SLA has been filed against the judgment and order dated 06th February, 2009 passed by Shri Anil Kumar Jha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna by which the Trial Court has acquitted the Opposite Parties of the charges under Section 85(a) & 85 (e) of the Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The allegation in the complaint is that the M/s Array Tailors has not paid the employees’ contribution for the period 07.06.2001 to 30.06.2002 in contravention of Sections 39 and 40 of the Act and further the Opposite Parties have failed to submit the return of contribution due on 30.09.2001 and 31.03.2002 in contravention of Section 44 of the Act. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties submits that the Trial Court has not - 2 - appreciated the evidence of PW 3 who is the retired Superintendent of E.S.I. Corporation and had conducted a survey of the firm M/s Array Tailors. After going through the judgment and order of the Trial Court, I find that the Trial Court has rejected the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 as they have not been able to state anything with respect to the inspection or with respect to the fact that M/s Array Tailors was registered with the Employees State Insurance Corporation. As far as PW 3 is concerned, the Trial Court has considered that PW 3 had made a survey of the premises of the firm and prepared reports which are marked as X, X/1 and X/2. These reports have not been exhibited but the Trial Court has considered them. According to PW 3, a notice was served to the Opposite Parties, however, no receipt has been filed that the notice was sent under registered cover. The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence of PW 3 has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not been able to prove that (a) the firm was registered under the Employees State Insurance Corporation, (b) notice were validly served to the Opposite Parties and (c) no opportunity was ever given to the firm in question to explain the non-compliance of the provisions of the Act. The specific case of the defence is that they are not registered with the Corporation and they do not have - 3 - more than two employees and have a premise which is very small and thus they do not come within the purview of the Act. The defence has also produced documents. Exhibits A, B, C and D to give details with respect to the business that they run and they also adduced evidence to show that they are running a small tailoring shop. The impugned judgment dealt with every aspect of the case and the issues raised on behalf of the petitioner and just because there can be another interpretation of the evidence of PW 3, this Court would not consider it a good enough ground to interfere in this matter. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned judgment of the Trial Court is backed by good reasons and cannot under any circumstances be considered to be perverse. The SLA is thus dismissed. Learned Counsel submits that the findings of this Court should not prejudice any other proceedings pending before any other Court. This aspect should be considered by the Court who are in seisin of such matters. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )