The burden of proof lies with the insurance authorities to provide specific particulars of employees to justify contribution orders; failure to produce such evidence, especially when a valid license for fewer employees exists, renders the order unsustainable.

::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. 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.

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.

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 order dated 28.12.2020 passed by the Employees’ Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad in E.I.C.No.62 of 2018. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneou