HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4203 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: M/s. Golden Deer Restaurant and Bar is a Partnership firm and the petitioner by name Ashok Karan is said to be one of the partners. He states that under an arrangement with the other partners, evidenced through document dated 02-04-1994, he was entitled to run the establishment for a period of three years, however, he ran the establishment only for a period of seven months between 18-03-1994 and 03-11-1994. The authorities of Employees’ State Insurance Corporation served notice on 28-06-1999 upon the son of the of the petitioner, demanding payment of contribution for the period between 1992 and 1998 amounting to Rs.1,19,991/-. 2. Appellant filed E.I. Case No.38 of 1999 in the Employees’ Insurance Court – cum – Chairman, Industrial Tribunal – I, Hyderabad challenging the said proceedings. He pleaded that he is not liable to pay any amount, since he run the establishment only for seven months. The case was opposed by the respondent. According to him, whether in the capacity of one of the partners or a person who is in management of the establishment, the petitioner is liable to pay the arrears by operation of Section 93-A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘ESI Act’). Through its order dated 16-02-2001, the trial Court dismissed the case. Hence, this appeal under Section 82 of the ESI Act. 3. Heard Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Pushpender Kour, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The plea raised by the appellant is that he ran the establishment only for a period of seven months and he cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay the contribution for the period anterior and posterior thereto. The respondent took shelter under Section 93-A of the ESI Act. Technically speaking, the respondent may be correct in fastening liability upon the appellant. However, recourse to that can be had in case the establishment as such, is not in existence. The selective choosing of one of the partners cannot be countenanced. 5. The record of the case discloses that the appellant did not file any application for stay, and though the CMA was admitted way- back on 30-06-2004, no steps were taken for securing stay thereafter also. There was no impediment for the respondent to recover the amount. In case, the amount is not recovered so far, they can issue fresh notice to the persons in management at present or to the petitioner and give them an opportunity to explain, before taking further steps. 6. Hence, the CMA is disposed of upholding the order under appeal but directing that the respondent shall issue fresh notice for recovery of arrears, if any, to the persons or agency in Management of the establishment i.e. M/s. Golden Deer Bar and Restaurant and take further steps in accordance with law, duly giving opportunity to the effective persons. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J August 20, 2010. KTL