JUDGMENT

(Prayer in CMA.No.833 of 2022: Appeal is filed under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, to set aside order and decree of Employees State Insurance Court (Principal Labour, Court, Chennai) in EIOP.No.59 of 2015 dated 10.12.2021.

In CMA.No.843 of 2022: Appeal is filed under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, to allow the appeal and set aside order and decree of Employees State Insurance Court (Principal Labour Court, Chennai) in EIOP No.26 of 2005 dated 23.11.2021.)

Common Judgment

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their petitions in EIOP Nos.59 of 2015 and 26 of 2015 by the Employees Insurance Court (Principal Labour Court) Chennai, the appellant is before this Court by filing CMA Nos.833 of 2022 and 843 of 2022. The brief facts are as follows:

2. Facts of the case:

i). The facts are common for both the appeals excepts that there are two orders which are challenged in the above two appeals. The appellant is an establishment which according to them did not engage more than 20 workmen at a given point of time who would qualify to be covered under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, hereinafter, for the sake of brevity referred to as the ESI Act.. While so, on 17.03.2004 drawing strength from a Government order extending the provisions of the ESI Act to Establishments, the respondent/Corporation had issued a coverage notice treating the petitioner as provisionally covered under the ESI Act. The appellant has responded by contending that the establishment has never employed more than 20 coverable employees on their premises. The appellant, to prove the above had provided the attendance register, salary register etc., for the scrutiny of the respondent.

ii). The appellant had engaged the services of M/s. Skilled Security Services for providing security to their premises. The said security service was an independent establishment under the cover of the ESI Act. The said Skilled Security Services has deployed four of their workmen as a security guards in the appellant premises. The Insurance Inspector had inspected the premises of the appellant and he had treated these four security guards as employees of the Appellant/ Establishment and held that the provisions of the ESI Act would apply to the Appellant/Establishment.

iii). Thereafter, a C-18 notice dated 16.08.2004 was issued on the basis of assumed wages for 22 employees at the rate of Rs.3,557/- per month. The appellant had submitted their objections vide letter dated 17.01.2005. They had contended that their employees were always less than 20 in number and these security guards cannot be treated as their employees for the purpose of coverage under the Act. However, the respondent proceeded to pass orders under Section 45(A) of the ESI Act, rejecting the contentions of the appellant. The appellant was therefore, constrained to file EIOP No.26 of 2005 before the Employees State Insurance Court (Principal Labour Court) Chennai. By an order dated 23.11.2021 the ESI Court had dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by which the appellant establishment is before this Court in C.M.A.No.843 of 2022. While the proceedings in EIOP No.26 of 2005 was pending a C-18 notice was issued once again on the basis that the appellant/establishment had on its rolls 22 coverable employees and contribution was calculated at the rate of Rs.8,250/- per month. The representatives of the employer namely, the appellant herein attended the hearing and brought to the notice of the Authority that the total number of coverable employees was less than 20.

iv). Despite receiving the said explanation the authority proceeded to pass an order under Section 45(A) of the ESI Act, rejecting the contentions of the appellant that the four security officers cannot be treated as the employees of the Appellant. Challenging the said order the appellant had filed the petition before the Employees State Insurance Court ( Principal Labour Court, Chennai) in EIOP No