Uttarakhand High Court
M/S Vision Metal Aids Pvt. Ltd vs Employee State Insurance Corporation on 1 April, 2013
Author: Prafulla C. Pant
Bench: Prafulla C. Pant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Appeal From Order No. 140 of 2013
1. M/s Vision Metal Aids Pvt. Ltd.
D‐17 Industrial Area Bahadrabad
District Haridwar through its Director
Shri Ashish Gupta
2. Ashish Gupta, S/o Shri S.P. Gupta
C/o M/s Vision Metal Aids Pvt. Ltd.
D‐17 Industrial Area Bahadrabad
District Haridwar
.................Appellants
Versus
1. Employee State Insurance Corporation
Panchdeep Bhawan Sarvodai Nagar Kanpur
Through its Deputy Director now substituted by
Panchdeep Bhawan Wingh No. 4
Shivpuri Prem Nagar, Dehradun
2. Manager/Recovery Inspector
Employees State Insurance Corporation
Local Office of Haridwar at Hari Nagar
In front of Classis Residency, Haridwar
...............Respondents
Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate, present for the appellants. Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate, present for the respondents. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant,J.
Heard.
2. This appeal preferred under section 82(2) of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2013, passed by Employees State Insurance Court/Civil Judge (Sr. Div) Haridwar, in Suit No. 189 of 2013, whereby said court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff seeking 2 declaration that the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act are not applicable to its.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant (plaintiff/ industry) submitted that in suit no. 209 of 2003 relief was granted to one M/s Ganpati Traders Pvt. Ltd. by the court and the present appellant was entitled to relief on its basis.
4. However, on perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court shows that plaintiff could not show before the trial court that his industry runs with employees less than ten. It is specifically mentioned by the trial court that the area of village Ravli Mehdood and Jamalpur Khurd (in which the factory situated) were covered vide Notification No. F‐ 6/12/68‐HI(vii) dated 19.07.1970. The order dated 26.09.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar, in Suit No. 209 of 2003 shows that notification dated 07.07.1989 does not cover the Bahadrabad area. Said suit was filed by one Ganpati Traders (not by the present appellant or his predecessor) nor does that suit pertains to notification dated 19.07.1970, as such the decision in said suit is of no help to the present appellants.
3
5. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that there is substantial question of law involved in this appeal.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed summarily. (Stay application no. 2736 of 2013, also stands disposed of).
(Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 01.04.2013