Cooperation with authorities and production of genuine documents are essential in disputing establishment coverage under the E.S.I. Act.

JUDGMENT

(PRAYER in CMA(MD).No.387 of 2017:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82 of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, to set aside the order passed by the E.S.I Court (Labour Court), Tirunelveli in E.S.I.O.P.No.14 of 2016, dated 19.12.2016 and allow this appeal.

In CMA(MD).No.968 of 2017:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82 of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, to set aside the order passed by the E.S.I Court (Labour Court), Tirunelveli in E.S.I.O.P.Nos.6 of 2017 dated 06.09.2017 and allow this appeal.

In Cross Objection No.22 of 2017:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82 of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, to set aside the portion of the decree and judgment in respect of setting aside the order under Section 45-A dated 23.12.2015 by the Employees'' State Insurance Cum Labourer Court, Tirunelveli in E.S.I.O.P.No.14 of 2016 dated 19.12.2016 and allow the cross appeal in CMA(MD).No.387 of 2017.)

Common Judgment:

1. Both the appeals have been filed by the establishment challenging the order of E.S.I.Court confirming the order of E.S.I. Corporation passed under Section 45-A of the E.S.I.Act declaring the coverage of the appellant establishment.

2. CMA.No.387 of 2017 arises out of an order passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.14 of 2016 challenging the order passed by the E.S.I.Corporation under Section 45-A of the E.S.I.Act on 23.12.2015 claiming a sum of Rs.2,30,052/- for a period covering June 2012 to August 2015.

3. CMA(MD).No.968 of 2017 has been filed challenging the order passed by the E.S.I.Court in E.S.I.O.P.No.6 of 2017 arising out of the order passed under Section 45-A of the Act dated 07.03.2017 demanding a sum of Rs.1,41,570/- for the period of May 2010, August 2010, September 2010 and November 2010 to May 2012.

4. In both appeals, the Corporation Officials have inspected the respondent establishment on 18.02.2013 and prepared a Visit Note to the effect that 10 employees were working in the respondent establishment and therefore, the establishment should be covered under E.S.I.Act. Based upon the Visit Note, an enquiry notice was issued to the employer and the employer had failed to attend the enquiry and thereafter, 2 independent orders under Section 45-A of the E.S.I.Act were passed on 28.03.2013 for two different periods. The said order was challenged by the respondent establishment in E.S.I.O.P.No.9 of 2013. The said petition was allowed on 28.11.2014 by the E.S.I.Court on the ground that no sufficient opportunity was given to the establishment to put forth their case. Liberty was granted to the Corporation for initiating fresh proceedings as against the respondent establishment in accordance with law.

5. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the establishment to attend for an enquiry and an order was passed under Section 45-A of the E.S.I.Act on 07.03.2017 and 23.12.2015 relating to two different periods. These two orders were challenged by the establishment by way of filing E.S.I.O.P.No 14 of 2016 and 6 of 2017 before the E.S.I. Court/Labour Court, Tirunelveli. The E.S.I.Court was pleased to dismiss both the petitions and therefore, the establishment has filed the above two appeals challenging the said orders.

6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/establishment, originally there was a visit by the Corporation Officials on 07.08.2009 and according to the said Visit Note, 12 persons were employed at that point of time. However, the said Visit Note was not served upon the establishment. Again for the second time on 18.02.2013, the officials have inspected the establishment and prepared a Visit Note which had pointed out that 10 persons were working during the said period. After the order of E.S.I.Court in E.S.I.O.P.No.9 of 2013, no further inspection was conducted. Only an enquiry notice was issued calling the establishment to appear for an enquiry. He had further contended that without providing sufficient opportunity to the employer, 2 independent orders under Sec