##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.228 of 2021

DATED : 19.12.2025

Between:

The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation,

Rep. by its Deputy Director,

Office of the Deputy Director,

Having its Registered office at #5-9-23,

Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad.

… Appellant/Respondent

AND

M/s. Vani Auto Services,

Rep. by its Proprietor Smt. B. Vani Kumari,

Near RTC Bus Stand, Bridge Road,

Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.

… Respondent/Petitioner

::JUDGMENT::

The present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated

28.12.2020 in E.I.C.No.62 of 2018 passed by the Employees Insurance

Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad.

2

SCR,J

C.M.A.No.228 of 2021

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent/petitioner

establishment is a small petrol pump, situated in Badrachalam,

Khammam District. In the course of conducting the business, the

respondent/petitioner had obtained a license for employing six (06)

employees from the labour department. It was submitted by the

respondent/petitioner that the survey inspector visited the premises on

25.10.2010 and the respondent/petitioner informed him that they only

engaged six (06) employees.

3. However, the appellant/Employees’ State Insurance Corporation,

represented by its Deputy Director, basing on the inspection alleged to

have been conducted by the authorities wherein they have stated to have

found ten (10) employees in the said retail outlet, the Deputy Director

passed the orders under Section 45-A of the Employees’ State Insurance

Act, 1948, vide proceedings No.AP/INS-II/52-00-034580-000-

0912/1598, dated 18.05.2015. By the said order, the office of the

Employees’ State Insurance Corporation directed the

respondent/petitioner to pay the contributions to the said employees.

Challenging the same, the respondent/petitioner filed Appeal under

Section 75 (1) (g) of the Act, before the Employees Insurance Court and

Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad.

3

SCR,J

C.M.A.No.228 of 2021

4. The learned Employees Insurance Court on evaluation of the

evidence held that the appellant/Employees’ State Insurance Authorities

has not gathered any evidence to showing the particulars of ten (10)

employees alleged to be working at the petrol pump of the

respondent/petitioner. The Court having heard both the parties and

having taken note of the license obtained for engaging six (06) employees

by the respondent/petitioner and also, as no evidence was produced

before the Insurance Court, showing the particulars of the names of the

employees found working at the petrol pump to contradict the said fact.

The Employees’ Insurance Court allowed appeal of the respondent/

petitioner in E.I.C.No.62 of 2018 dated 28.12.2020. Assailing the same,

the appellant/Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, has filed the

present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court under Section 82 (2)

of Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 as amended by the Employees’

Compensation (Amendment) Act, 2017.

5. Heard Mr. Ravinder Reddy Muppu, learned counsel for the

appellant/respondent and Ms. Juveria Sana, learned counsel

representing Mr. Pamula Vamshi Krishna, learned counsel for the

respondent/petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and

perused the material on record.

4

SCR,J

C.M.A.No.228 of 2021

6. It is evident from the record that the appellant/Employees’ State

Insurance Corporation has not produced the detailed particulars of the

employees as on the date of inspection so as to bring the respondent’s

petrol pump into the ambit of Employees’ State Insurance Corporation

Act, 1928 and more so the license was also granted for employing six (06)

persons only. In that view of the matter, in my considered view there is

no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Employees’ State

Insurance Court.

7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court having

considered the evidence on record, does not find any good reason to

interfere with the ord