[2026:RJ-JD:8260]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1506/2008 Hemajal Felt Finishing, Pali through its proprietor Prithvi Singh S/o Sh. Ganesh Singh, 682, Rajendra Nagar, Pali.

----Appellant Versus

1. The Deputy Director Regional Office, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, Bhiwani Singh Road, Jaipur.

2. Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur.

3. The Manager, Local Office, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Near Railway Post Office, Jodhpur Road, Pali.

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prem Dayal Bohra For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Judgment

13/02/2026

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1948), challenging the order dated 04.08.2008 passed by the learned Employees State Insurance Court, Pali, in Civil Misc. Case No. 11/2005, “Hemajal Felt Finishing, Pali vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors.” whereby the order passed under Section 45A of the Act of 1948, determining the contribution to be paid by the employer, after adjusting the amount already paid, was upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that during the inspection of the appellant’s firm, which was covered under the Act of 1948 since its inception, a demand letter was issued on 18.04.2005. The demand related to the ESIC contribution for the period from 27.03.2004 to 31.03.2004 and from 01.04.2004 to 30.09.2004, to the tune of Rs. 21,402/-. A show cause notice was issued, directing the appellant to remain present and show cause if he has anything to say qua the demands raised. In spite of the date fixed, the appellant did not appear, and thereafter, the order dated 06.06.2005 was passed under Section 45A of the Act of 1948, whereby the demand for a sum of Rs. 21,402/- was confirmed, giving all details of the contribution required to be paid, i.e., the salary of 13 employees for the period in question and the percentage of deduction for ESIC.

3. After passing of the order, the appellant submitted a reply on 16.06.2005, disputing the amount and stating that a sum of Rs. 7,143/- had already been deposited by him three days prior, i.e., on 13.06.2005. The employer, however, did not dispute the number of employees engaged or the demand being outstanding. 4. The suit in question was thereafter filed under the provisions of Section 75 of the Act of 1948, asserting that the appellant could not appear earlier due to the ailment of his wife. It was further asserted that in the reply dated 16.06.2005, the details of the amount deposited were specified, emphasizing that only a sum of Rs. 7,143/- remained outstanding, which was duly deposited later on. He further asserted that the final order should have been passed after adjusting the amount already deposited by the appellant, and it was also asserted that an additional sum of Rs.

13,771/- had already been recovered from the appellant.

5. The respondent-department while filing a reply to the above-mentioned plaint, denied the contents there of and asserted that after the inspection of premises of the appellant, it was found that the contribution had not been paid, and thereafter notice was issued to the appellant. The appellant failed to appear, and therefore the order in question was passed. It was stated that after considering the record, it was clear that the appellant had engaged 13 employees, and the contribution for those 13 employees was due for the period in question.

6. The learned ESIC Court framed two issues for its adjudication, which read as under:

ÞmHk; i{kksa ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij fuEu fookn fcUnq dk;e fd;s x;s%&

(1) vk;k vof/k 27-3-04 ls 30-9-04 ds bZ-,l-vkbZ- ls lacfa /kr vfHkys[k ds vfLrRo esa jgrs vizkFkhZ }kjk mDr vof/k dk rnFkZ vk/kkj ij va”knku fu/kkZj.k mfpr o oS/k gS\

--izkFkhZ (2) vuqrks’kAß

7. The appellant, in order to prove its case, examined himself i.e.