FA/2783/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2783 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7227 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI : ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= REGIONAL DIRECTOR - Appellant(s) Versus HARKANT G CHANIYARA C/O QUALITY MACHINE PRODUCTS - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HEMANT S SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1, MR YATIN SONI for Defendant(s) : 1, MR NIRAJ J SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 08/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0 This second appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of FA/2783/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT the Employees State Insurance Court, Rajkot in E.S.I. Application No. 3 of 1988 dated 20.12.2007 whereby, the said application was allowed. 2.0 The facts in brief leading rise to the filing of the present appeal are as under; 2.1 The opponent, original applicant, is a partnership firm engaged in the business of production of heavy machineries and is governed by the provisions of the E.S.I. Act, 1948. After carrying out necessary inspection, the appellant – Corporation demanded an amount of Rs.17,404.55 from the opponent – Company being the amount outstanding towards its contribution. 2.2 After unsuccessful deliberations, the opponent filed an application being E.S.I. Application No. 3 of 1988 before the E.S.I. Court, Rajkot praying for quashing of the order demanding the amount in question from the opponent. 2.3 In the said application, the appellant – Corporation filed its reply. After hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on record, the E.S.I. Court allowed the application of the opponent. Hence, this appeal. FA/2783/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT 3.0 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. After appreciating the entire evidence on record, the Court below has recorded a finding that both the entities, viz. Quality Machine Product and Quality Foundry were separate and independent inasmuch as their production process, books of accounts, etc., were different. Moreover, it has also not come out from the report of the Inspector of the appellant – Corporation that the Partners of both the entities were common, or in that case, the production process of both the entities were dependent on each other and had common control / supervision. It is also a matter of record that the premises of the second entity was not inspected by the authority of the appellant – Corporation. If the appellant – Corporation had the desire to club the two Units, then they have to justify the move by assigning cogent and convincing reasons. 4.0 Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the Court below was completely justified in allowing the application of the opponent. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Court below and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this appeal. FA/2783/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT 5.0 For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION As the main matter has been disposed of, the civil application shall not survive. It stands disposed of accordingly. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*