Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. vs Employees'' State Insurance

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.—Heard Shri R.V. Ghuge with Shri P.S Khubalkar, learned Counsel for Appellant/employer and Shri P.M. Pillai, learned Counsel for Respondent.

The appeal is u/s 82(2) of the Employees State Insurance Act, and can be entertained if a question of law arises. Shri Ghuge, the learned Counsel has contended that Akola office is concerned only with 19 administrative officers and the learned E.S.I. Court has committed an error by holding that 20 field workers are also forming part of said office. He has further stated that the finding of E.S.I. Court that in attendance register at Exh. 34, total number of employees is 21, is perserve.

Shri Pillai, learned Counsel for Respondent has disputed this proposition and he has invited attention to relevant evidence and observations.

Though I find that the Member of Industrial Court i.e. E.S.I. Court has in paragraph No. 34 made observations that there are 21 employees reflected in muster roll at Exh.-34, in the month of January, 1993 the Inspector of Respondent accepted that in said Register strength of employees is shown as 19 and it was signed by him. But, then perusal of evidence of the Appellants itself shows that it has been brought on record that they are having Regional Sales Office at Akola and that office is meant for Buldhana, Amravati, Akola and Yavatmal area. In cross-examination, this witness has accepted that all the administrative work for region is done from office at Akola and the region includes some districts in Vidarbha and Khandesh and 4 districts in Vidarbha are mentioned as Akola, Amravati, Buldhana and Yavatmal. The Districts from Khandesh region are not disclosed in chief, but are stated in cross-examination as Jalgaon, Bhusawal, Dhule and Nashik. It is stated that work in all these 8 districts is field work and. employees working in above said 8 districts were reporting "about their work at Akola office only". It is also admitted by the said person that at the relevant time there were 19 administrative officers at Akola and 20 field workers for 8 districts. At the end of the said paragraph, the witness has also admitted that as per the attendance register below Exh.-34, the strength of staff was 21.

It is therefore, obvious that Appellants have got 19 administrative officers at Akola as per their own contention. However, the stand is as number does not exceed 20, provisions of E.S.I. Act are not applicable. The field workers in 8 districts are reporting for their work at Akola and office at Akola is Regional Sales Office. The contention that they report at Akola for making attendance is therefore misconceived. No evidence to show that their attendance is separately marked at Akola and then it is forwarded to Jalna, where head office of Appellant is situated, is brought on record. In the circumstances, I find that the conclusion of E.S.I. Court that number of employees working at Akola exceeds 20, cannot be labelled as either erroneous or perverse. No substantial question of law arise in this appeal, the same is therefore dismissed. No cost.