AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Employees State Insurance Corporation is on appeal challenging the order dated 31.12.2004 made in ESI OP No.7 of 2003 on the file of the
ESI Court, Tirunelveli.
The first respondent herein Thiru V.Muthukrishnan, son of Veeralakshmanan, is a retail dealer in ready made garments. He was running his
business at a rented building at Classic Complex from the year 1994. He shifted his business to the first floor of Veeralakshmanan Complex owned
by his mother. The official of the appellant corporation inspected the establishment on 19.07.2000. On the same day, he also inspected
M/s.Veeralakshmana Stores which was functioning in the ground floor. The said textile shop belolnged to the father of the first respondent herein.
Thereafter based on the inspection report, the appellant issued notice dated 08.08.2001 clubbing the first respondent''s shop ""Maham"" with
Veeralakshmana Stores so as to bring them under the purview of the ESI Act. The first respondent herein gave his reply that the two are
independent and that there is no functional integrity between the two. But not satisfied with the reply, order under section 45A of the Act was
passed on 31.10.2000 clubbing both.
This was challenged before the ESI court in ESIOP No.7 of 2003 by the first respondent herein. The court below allowed the petition and set
aside the impugned order dated 31.10.2000. Hence this appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Before the court below, the first respondent herein examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P20. On the side of the Corporation, Ex.R1
to R2 were marked. Ex.R1 is the inspection report, while Exhibit R2 is the Maham Visit Note. An official of the appellant corporation examined
himself as RW1.
The learned counsel for the appellant corporation persuasively presented the arguments. This court went through the entire material on record.
The court below had specifically found that Exs.R1 and R2 are at variance with each other. Exhibit R1 had been independently prepared without
any basis. It has also been noted that the employees of the establishments viz., Maham and Veeralakshmana Stores were not examined. RW1
admitted during cross-examination that what is not found in Ex.R2 is mentioned in the report Ex.R1. He also admitted that bills are independently
issued for the business transactions taking place in Maham that is in the first floor. The second respondent is maintaining independent assessment
registers for his shops. Merely because the father was carrying on a textile shop in the ground floor, it is not a justification for clubbing the
establishments. It is admitted that the tax assessment is separate for both the establishments. Merely because there is a common entrance, it is not a
ground for holding that the establishments are functionally integrated. The court below has analyzed the facts in considerable detail, it had applied
the correct principles of law, for setting aside the order dated 31.10.2000 clubbing the two establishments. This court finds no reason to differ with
the well considered order passed by the ESI Court. This appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs.