Criminal Misc. No.217-MA 2005 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.217-MA 2005 Date of decision : 20.8.2008 Employees State Insurance Corporation .....Appellant Versus Satish Kumar and another ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: None S. D. ANAND, J. Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Corporation”) launched a prosecution under Section 85(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 948 (hereinafter referred to as “ESI Act”) against respondents-accused on the allegation that respondent no.1, as proprietor of respondent no. 2 firm and also principal employer incharge of establishment, had failed to pay the ESI contribution for the wage period from June 1994 to September, 1994. The plea did not find favour with the learned Trial Court, which recorded that “the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Satish Kumar is the proprietor of M/s M.R.S. Engg. Corporation, ES- 434, Abadpura, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar. In the body of the complaint, it has been mentioned that accused Santosh Kumar proprietor is the principal employer qua the accused no. 2. Even in Criminal Misc. No.217-MA 2005 -2- *** the sanction dated 6.7.1995 Ex. PB accorded by the Regional Director, the name of the proprietor of firm M/s M.R.S. Engg. Corporation has been mentioned as Santosh Kumar. The show cxause notice Ex. PA is also addressed to some Santosh Kumar. The only witness examined by the complainant PW-1 Shri J.P. Puri has stated that he has never seen any record which may show that accused Satish Kumar is the proprietor of the said firm. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that there is no evidence to prove that accused Satish Kumar is the proprietor of the said firm as such, he cannot be said to be the principal employer qua the said firm.” Learned Trial Court further noticed that “there is nothing to prove that the said firm ever committed any default in depositing the contribution for the wage period from 6/1994 to 9/1994.”. The above finding is relatable to the evidence obtaining on the file. The view taken by the learned Trial Court, and also reasoning recorded in support thereof, is in order and does not call for any interference. Dismissed. August 20, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No