3. Respondent/Establishment filed petition under Section 75 of the 1948 Act impugning order passed by appellant, dated 27.01.1994 claiming the same to be illegal, null and void on the ground that the respondent/Establishment was not covered under ESI Act and the report submitted by the Inspector was not in accordance with law and thus ought not have been relied upon by the Corporation to serve demand notice upon the respondent.

4. The other issue that was raised, was w.r.t. tailoring not being a manufacturing process and that the regular employees being only 4, the remaining casual employees ought not have been taken into consideration.

5. The ESI Court while adjudicating upon issue w.r.t. the respondent/Establishment being covered under the Act, found that the report Exhibit R-1 signed by RW-1, who was employed as Insurance Inspector, was not in accordance with law. The Inspector’s report being not as prescribed under the statute and the rules framed thereunder, the report Exhibit R-1, cannot be relied upon. The other two issues were found covered against the establishment.

6. Counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings recorded by the ESI Court. He submits that the onus was upon the establishment to prove that the report submitted by ESI Inspector was not in accordance with law and that the establishment did not meet the requirement of minimum number of employees. He submits that Form B submitted by the establishment itself shows that there are 10 employees mentioned therein and thus the respondent cannot claim to be not covered under ESI Act.

7. I have heard counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through records of the case.

8. The issue has been dealt by the ESI Court, observing as under:

“7. After considering the evidence on the record, it is pertinent to note that as per the evidence, the applicant claimed that on the date of visit of Insurance Inspector he had employed only four direct employees, whereas the remaining were on contract basis, who were to work for the applicant on piece rate basis, whereas the claim of the respondents is that the applicant had employed 11 persons, who were also doing the work within the aid of power, thus he was covered under the E.S.I. Act.”

9. Mr. Bhatia is not in position to dispute that the report, Exhibit R-1 having not been prepared in consonance with the provisions of law, the ESI Court rightly discarded the same.

10. In view of above, finding no merit in the present appeals, the same are ordered to be dismissed.

11. Pending application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.

12. A copy of this order be kept on the file of other connected case.

October 27, 2025 (Pankaj Jain)

Dpr Judge