The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Goshala is not a shop as it did not engage 20 or more employees on wages, and it cannot be covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act on the basis of voluntary coverage allegedly offered by an employee of the Goshala.

Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent on this miscellaneous appeal.

2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 82(2) of the Employees State Insurance Act-1948 against the judgment dated 28.06.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Employee's State Insurance Court, Patna (hereinafter in short referred to as the "E.S.I. Court") in E.S.I. Case No.02 of 2011 by which the learned Labour Court set aside the interim coverage order passed vide letter no.P/42-11666-101/182 dated 15/17.04.2002 and show cause notice dated 29.04.2003 issued by the Deputy Director, Regional Office, Employee State Insurance Corporation, Patna.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that Shri Krishna Goshala (respondent) filed an application under Section 75 (1) (g) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter in short referred to as the "Act") for setting aside the provisional coverage order, passed vide letter no. P/42-11666-101/182 dated 15/17.04.2002 issued by the Deputy Director, Regional Office, Employee State Insurance Corporation, Patna (appellant no.2 herein) by which Shri Krishna Goshala (hereinafter in short referred to as the "Goshala") was provisionally covered in purported exercise of power under Section 1 (5) of the Act and to set aside the show cause notice dated 29.04.2003 issued by the opposite party no.2/appellant no.2 and declaring that the Goshala is not covered under any notification issued under the Act.

4. Opposite parties put their appearance in the case and filed a written statement. Both the parties adduced their ocular as well as documentary evidence in buttress of their respective case.

5. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, the learned E.S.I. Court passed the aforesaid judgment as detailed in earlier paragraph.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment the opposite parties have preferred this appeal.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned E.S.I. Court has wrongly shifted the onus to establish that the Goshala has engaged 20 or more employees in his establishment for the purpose of the Act upon the appellants while vide Ext.D respondent has admitted working of 27 employees in its establishment but the learned E.S.I. Court did not consider the aforesaid aspect of the case. The finding of the learned E.S.I. Court that the Goshala never engaged 20 or more employees is not supported with any documentary evidence and the same is perverse. Ext.D candidly indicates that 27 employees were employed on wages by the Goshala on the material time on 10.04.2000, it has not denied the issuance of the said letter on its letter pad rather A.W.1 has deposed that Goshala has never employed 20 or more employees. A.W.1 has deposed that he has prepared the register for the month of April, 2000 and may file the same, if available but has not purposely filed the same. Hence an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the respondent but the learned E.S.I. Court has wrongly ignored the same and illegally held that the Goshala has never employed 20 or more employees. The learned E.S.I. Court has wrongly held that the said Goshala cannot be covered in view of the notification dated 20.08.1975 as it is not an establishment rather it is a charitable institution and the predominant purpose of the said Goshala is to maintain and provide service to the infirm cows and calves as per the Hindu religion. Admittedly, the said Goshala is engaged in selling milk to its own members, hence, the economic activity is being carried on in the said establishment and the said establishment will be treated as a shop for all purpose. It has wrongly observed that letter dated 18.04.2000 (Ext.C) is not supported with any evidence either oral or the documentary. So far as the oral evidence is concerned OP.W2 has deposed that the then B.M.E.S.I.C., Patna City who had sent the aforesaid letter dated 18