G. YETHIRAJULU, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the Order dated 30/12/1996 of the Employees insurance Court, Hyderabad in E. I. Case No. 13 of 1995 directing to bring the appellant-Hotel within the purview of the Employees State insurance Act, 1948 (for short the Act ).

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the direction of the employees Insurance Court are briefly as follows:

( 3 ) THE appellant is a Hotel situated at A. C. Guards, Hyderabad wherein tea and ready-made snacks procured from outside are sold. The appellant engaged 5 or 6 persons only per day. The said workers are not engaged regularly. There is no relationship of master and servant between the appellant and the workers. Except the Supervisor, there is no worker appointed on regular basis. The appellant is not using any power in the manufacturing process. . The Insurance inspector visited the Hotel on 14/03/1991 and found 7 workers only. The Insurance inspector again visited the Hotel on 5/10/1994 in the absence of the Proprietor and included in the list of workers, the customers and persons running independent business outside the Hotel premises. The appellant sent a reply to the inspection notice of the Inspector that there were never 10 or more workers in the Hotel. Therefore, the Hotel cannot be covered under the Act. The appellant requested to declare that the Act is not applicable to the hotel. The respondent representing the employees State Insurance Corporation resisted the petition by contending that when the Insurance Inspector visited the Hotel on 5/10/1994 the Proprietor was absent. No record was produced before him. When he counted the workmen, they were 11 in number. He prepared a visit note containing the names of the workers and obtained their signatures on it. He also noticed liquid gas cylinder being used for manufacturing process. The Hotel comes within the purview of the Act. The appellant is, therefore, liable to pay contribution. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the above averments made by both parties, the Employees State insurance Court took up an issue whether the establishment of the appellant comes within the purview of the Act, for consideration.

( 5 ) THE appellant in order to prove his case examined the Proprietor of the Hotel as P. W. I and marked Exhibits P1 to P16. The respondent examined R. Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exhibit R1 Preliminary Inspection Report. The insurance Court, after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by both parties, came to a conclusion that the evidence of the Insurance inspector established that there were 11 employees working in the Hotel and further observed that the Hotel comes within the purview of the Act and the coverage will be quashed, if the appellant engages less than 10 persons and not using power in the manufacturing process. By expressing the above view, the Insurance Court held that the appellant-Hotel comes within the purview of the Act and the appellant has to pay the contribution after filing necessary returns. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of the Employees State Insurance Court preferred this appeal challenging its validity and legality.

( 6 ) THE point for consideration is whether the appellant-Hotel comes within the purview of the Act?

( 7 ) THE appellant is contending that he is not manufacturing any food items at the Hotel premises and he is bringing them from outside for service to the customers. He further stated that he engaged only 5 or 6 employees at a time and at the time of inspection of the Insurance inspector also there were not more than 5 or 6 workers. He further stated that he did not use electricity for any manufacturing purpose. Therefore, the Hotel cannot be brought within the purview of the Act. The Insurance inspector, who visited the premises, categorically noted in his visit note, the details of the persons who were working in the hotel and the wages they were receiving. He also obtained the signatures of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document