THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2012 passed in E.I.C.No.29 of 2006 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman Industrial Tribunal-I, at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal), this C.M.A.No.578 of 2013 filed by petitioner/appellant.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.12.2012 passed in E.I.C.No.27 of 2006 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman Industrial Tribunal-I, at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal), this C.M.A.No.630 of 2013 filed by petitioner/appellant.

3. Heard K.V.Vani, learned counsel representing Mr. A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. P.Vengal Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. B.G.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for respondents.

4. For reference, facts in C.M.A.No.630 of 2013 are being considered.

5. Parties are referred as in Employees Insurance Court and Chairman Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad. Petitioner-Unit is a rice mill running under the name of Vaishnavi Industries. The Unit was taken on lease from Balaji Industries Ltd. on 08.04.1999. It is claimed by petitioner in E.I.C.No.27 of 2006 that rice mill business was only for a period of 8 months from June, 1999, to January, 2000, that by letter dated 10.02.2000, the lease was terminated.

6. A code No.52-19173-05 is allotted to petitioner-Unit. An inspection was conducted on 25.01.2001, at the time of inspection, the Unit was functioning with the aid of power and 11 persons were engaged in the Unit as per the report of inspector. The visit note of Inspector is signed by Mr. P.Eshwar (Mastery) and Mr. Mahesh Reddy (Accountant).

7. In the month of November, 2001, another Inspector visited and conducted inspection. Petitioner-Unit failed to pay contributions for the period from 25.01.2001 to September, 2003. The requirement to pay contributions is under Section 40 of Employees State Insurance Act (for short ‘ESI Act’) r/w Regulation with Section 39 and Regulation 31 of ESI Act (General) Regulations. C-18 notice was issued on 11.08.2003, affording an opportunity on 06.11.2003 (for hearing) but the employer failed to attend the hearing. The order under Section 45-A, dated 15.12.2003, determining the contributions payable at Rs.36,363/- was passed by the authorities.

8. The order dated 15.12.2003 was challenged before the Tribunal by way of E.I.C.No.27 of 2006. The Tribunal after considered the evidence of PW1 (on behalf of petitioner) and RW1 and RW2 (on behalf of respondents), the documents marked i.e., Exs.P1 to P4 and Exs.R1 to R6, held that the petitioner-Unit employed 11 employees, running the rice mill with the aid of power and failed to pay contributions from 25.01.2001 to 31.03.2003 and the Unit is liable to pay a sum of Rs.31,363/- for the period. It is this order under challenge in this CMA.

9. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner/appellant that the Unit was taken on lease from 08.04.1999 and the said lease was terminated on 10.02.2000. Learned counsel has relied upon Clauses 6 and 7 of the termination lease deed. A copy of lease deed dated 08.04.1999 is marked as Ex.P2. It is contended that though as per the lease deed, the lease was for a period of 3 years commencing from 10.04.1999 on a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/- and the lease is terminable for any reason by the lessee by issuing 90 days advance notice in writing to the lessor. It is further submitted that as the partners (Managing partner Sri P.Ravinder and other partner Sri P.Narayana Reddy)

suffered loss and closed the Unit after a period of 8 months.

10. It is submitted that at the time of inspection, the Inspector had taken information from Accountant and Mastery and that both were not the employees of Unit. It is further submitted that out of 11 employees shown as under employment in the Unit, 3 of them were Hamalis. It is also submitted that if the two persons from whom information was recorded by inspectors and 3 other Hamalis were deducted from the 11 employees, the