Case Note & Summary
The Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) appealed against the judgment and order dated 26/8/2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Employees Insurance Court, North Goa at Panaji in ESIC No.4/2000. The appeal was preferred under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The respondent, M/s. R.K. Furnaces, had filed an application under Section 75 of the Act seeking a declaration that they were not covered under the provisions of the Act. The ESIC's case was that their Inspector visited the respondent's establishment in August 1981 and found that the respondent had engaged 13 employees. The coverage intimation was sent on 26/10/1981, but the respondent failed to furnish particulars. The ESI Court, after considering the evidence, held that the respondent was not covered under the Act. The ESIC challenged this finding in the High Court. The High Court noted that under Section 82 of the Act, an appeal lies only if it involves a substantial question of law. The court examined the impugned judgment and the records and found that the ESI Court had appreciated the evidence and recorded findings of fact. The High Court held that it could not re-appreciate the evidence in an appeal under Section 82. The court concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal and dismissed it. The court also noted that the appeal was filed after a delay of 89 days, but since the appeal was dismissed on merits, the delay was not condoned.
Headnote
A) Employees' State Insurance - Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 82, Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - The court examined whether the appeal involved a substantial question of law as required under Section 82 of the ESI Act. The appellant ESI Corporation challenged the ESI Court's finding that the respondent's establishment was not covered under the Act. The High Court held that the ESI Court's findings were based on appreciation of evidence and were findings of fact, which cannot be re-appreciated in an appeal under Section 82. The appeal was dismissed as it did not involve any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 involves any substantial question of law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose. The court did not condone the delay of 89 days in filing the appeal as the appeal was dismissed on merits.
Law Points
- Appeal under Section 82 of ESI Act lies only on substantial question of law
- Findings of fact cannot be re-appreciated in appeal
- Coverage under ESI Act depends on number of employees
