Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mohan Lal vs Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation on 10 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)IILLJ231RAJ
JUDGMENT V.S. Kokje, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called "the Act"). The appellant had filed an application under Section 75 of the Act, contesting the decision of the ESI Corporation to treat the factory of the appellant to be covered under the provisions of the Act. After taking evidence in the case, the trial Court rejected the contention and held that the factory was covered under the Act. Aggrieved by this decision, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no legal evidence to hold that 20 or more persons worked during the relevant period in the Establishment of the appellant. It was submitted that though Form 01 was signed by the appellant, he had deposed in the Court that he had signed on a blank form and had not admitted the contents thereof. It was also submitted that it was necessary for the respondent to have examined the person who had got Form 01 signed by the appellant.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the ESI Corporation submitted that the moment signatures on Form 01 are accepted by the appellant to be his own, the burden to prove that the contents were not true shifted to the appellant. In these circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, it was not necessary to examine the Inspector, who had inspected the factory and got the Form 01 signed by the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that there was no substantial question of law involved in the appeal and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.
4. Having heard the learned counsel and having perused the record, I find no force in this appeal. Whether on a particular date 20 or more persons worked in the factory or not is purely a question of fact. The finding of the trial Court that 20 or more persons worked on a particular date, is based on the admission of the appellant himself, contained in Form 01. There is no force in the contention that this Form was signed blank, and even if it is so, the appellant has to thank himself. There is clearly a declaration at the bottom of Form 01, under which the appellant has signed. When he has declared that the statement given was correct to the best of his knowledge and belief, it cannot be believed that he had signed on a blank paper. In any case, this would not amount to a question of law or a substantial question of law.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant also tried to argue that the factory was not covered, for other reasons also, like the employer not falling within the scope of Section 2(12) of the Act. In the application no details about this plea have been given and only a single line in paragraph 11 that the plaintiff firm did not fall within the scope of Section 2(12) of the Act is written. This is no way of seriously contending that the factory was not covered for the reasons that it did not fall within the definition of Section 2(12) of the Act. In the absence of specific pleadings, therefore, this plea has to be ignored.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal has no force, it is dismissed.