IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 1145-SBA of 2000
Date of decision: 12th August, 2009
Employees State Insurance Corporation
... Appellant
Versus
Satish Bajaj and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the appellant.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Employees State Insurance Corporation had filed a complaint
against Satish Bajaj, Proprietor/ Principal Employer of M/s Ganesh Timber
Merchants and M/s Ganesh Timber Merchants, with a prayer that they are
liable to be convicted under Section 85 (a) of the Employees State
Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’). In the complaint,
it was stated that accused Satish Bajaj is the Principal Employer of M/s
Ganesh Timber Merchants, Ludhiana and the said establishment is
covered under Section 2(17) of the Act. It was stated that the accused had
failed to pay the contribution to the Corporation as required under Sections
39, 40(1) and 43 of the Act read with Regulation 31 of the ESI Act (General
Regulations), 1950. For the wage period from October 1994 to March
1995, the contribution was due to be deposited in the accounts of the
Corporation on 21st day of each following month. The complainant
examined only J.C. Dhingra, Inspector ESI. The trial Court came to the
conclusion that the solitary witness examined by the complainant has
Criminal Appeal No. 1145-SBA of 2000 2
admitted that whether the establishment of the accused is covered under
ESI Act or not, was already under challenge. Furthermore, the trial Court
appreciated the evidence and relied upon the admission made by PW-1
J.C.Dhingra that only 2/3 persons are employed in handling the timber
business. Therefore, an inference was drawn that the accused
establishment is not covered under the ESI Act. Furthermore, the trial
Court came to the conclusion that the witness has failed to prove
necessary ingredients of the offence whether any contribution was
deducted by the employer or not. The prosecution also failed to prove
issuance and service of notice, Ex.P-1, upon the accused. Furthermore,
notice Ex.P-1 was having blank columns and was not properly filled.
Therefore, it was held that the accused cannot be held guilty of the
offence. Furthermore, the trial Court held that from the testimony of DW-1
Narain Dass Sharma, it stands established that there are notings on the
file regarding grant of sanction, but no sanction was granted by the
competent authority. The Employees State Insurance Corporation,
complainant had filed present appeal against the judgment of acquittal
rendered by the Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Ludhiana on 24th
December, 1999.
I have heard Mr. B.S. Bhalla, counsel appearing for the
appellant. He has not been able to dislodge the finding of fact recorded by
the trial Court regarding number of employees, contribution deducted and
service of notice upon the accused. Furthermore, on the legal issue that
there was no sanction by the competent authority despite various efforts
made, Mr. Bhalla failed to show any document, which can reveal that any
sanction was granted to prosecute the accused. Therefore, taking totality
of circumstances noticed by the trial Court, I am of the view that it is not a
Criminal Appeal No. 1145-SBA of 2000 3
case where interference is warranted in appeal against acquittal, as the
impugned judgment suffers from no infirmity.
Hence, present appeal is dismissed.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
August 12, 2009
rps