Extension of the provisions of the Act to Branch Office held legal.

GOVARDHAN, J.

This appeal is against the order passed by the E.S.I. Judge, Tirunelveli dated June 29, 1994 in E.S.I. O.P. No. 7 of 1989 filed under Section75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter called as the Act).

2. The appellant's case is briefly as follows : The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business in getting manufacturing and selling the beedies under the trade name "Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works". The petitioner has a branch at Tachanallur. The said premises is not used either for manufacturing or purchasing beedies. It is not a shop or a factory. Power is not used there. Number of workers in that premises is less than 20. The premises is used only for the purpose of storing, collecting and distributing beedies for the purpose of packing under its trade mark. The petitioner has obtained a licence for the premises under the Beedi and Cigar Workers Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966. Beedi Workers' Welfare Cess Act and Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Act. The respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner stating that the provisions of the E.S.I. Act have been extended to the establishment of the petitioner. In spite of his sending a suitable reply and making representation, the respondent has passed the impugned order on April 27, 1989. The said order is null and void and without jurisdiction. Hence the petition for declaring the same as null and void.

3. The respondent in their objections has alleged as follows : The provisions of the Act were extended as per the notification in G.O.Ms. No. 360 dated May 2, 1978 to the petitioner's branch at Tachanallur. The notification is with effect from May 14, 1978. The Inspector has conducted an inspection and informed the coverage position to the petitioner by a communication dated June 17, 1985. The petitioner has not produced records for inspection. A show cause notice was issued. The petitioner has sent a reply and has also attended the personal hearing. After hearing the objection, an order under section45-A of the Act was passed. The contributions by the petitioner to the E.S.I. fund would not come up to double levy. The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

4. On the above pleadings, an enquiry was held by the learned E.S.I. Judge, Tirunelveli and he has given a finding that the E.S.I. Act which is anterior in time, is more beneficial and favourable to the employees and therefore the provisions of said Act would prevail and dismissed the O P., filed by the petitioner.

Aggrieved over the same, the applicant has come forward with this appeal.

5. The beamed counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that the order passed by the E.S.I. Judge is not sustainable since the premises where the inspection was conducted by the Inspector is a godown where there is no manufacturing process carried on by the applicant and where the employees are less than 20 and the notification relied by the respondent does not apply and cover this place which is only a godown. According to the learned counsel, the premises where the inspection was done by the Inspector, is neither a "shop" nor a "factory" nor an industrial premises, in order to bring it under the notification. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the provisions of the Beedi Workers Cess Act, Beedi Workers' Welfare Fund Act and Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act have been extended to the petitioner's premises and therefore the Employees' State Insurance Act which is the general Act even though is applicable, it cannot be stated that the notification has been extended to this place on account of the fact that there is no manufacturing process carried on. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Shop Act does not apply to the premises and when the Shop Act is not applicable, the notification is immaterial and the notification cannot be said to be extended to the premises of the petitioner. The learned counsel a