IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 1285 of 2001(B)
1. M/S.ROCKY ENGINEERING & AUTOMOBILES
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I CORPORATION
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :25/06/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------
M.F.A.Nos.1285 & 1287 OF 2001
-------------------------------------
Dated 25th June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
Appellant in these cases, aggrieved by the action of the
Employees’ State Insurance Corporation in clubbing two units together
and extending coverage, approached the Employees’ Insurance Court. It
is the contention of the appellant that there are two independent firms.
One was constituted by Ext.P1 partnership deed dated 2.9.1992 and the
other was constituted by Ext.P2 partnership deed dated 5.9.1992. One
firm is doing lathe works and workshop activities of four wheelers. The
other firm is a service centre of Bajaj Automobiles and conducting sale of
spare parts of Bajaj vehicles and the employees in that firm are approved
trained workers from Bajaj Auto Limited. Even though name of the firms
is `Rocky Engineering and Automobiles’ and partners are the same, firms
are doing independent business, there is no connection with each other.
Both maintain separate muster rolls. Ext.P3 muster roll is of the firm
which is doing engineering works and Exts.P5 and P6 are of the other
firm. Further, separate accounts and separate ledgers are there for the
Engineering workshop. Ext.P8 is the factory licence issued to the
Engineering workshop. The activities are conducted in two buildings
MFA.1285 & 1287/2001 2
even though in the same compound. Separate panchayat licence,
separate building tax etc. are there. To support the arguments,
Exts.P1 to P27 were produced. E.I. Court did not agree with the same
on the ground that there is unity of ownership. Unity of ownership of
the establishments is only one of the matters to be looked into. The
questions whether one unit can be treated as part of the other unit,
whether one establishment will exist without the other establishment,
whether employees are transferable from one establishment to other,
whether separate partnerships are there, whether the activities
carried on in both firms are one and the same, whether separate
accounts are maintained etc. have to be considered. We are of the
opinion that all the documents filed by the appellant have to be looked
into. That was not considered. We are of the opinion that the matter
requires more evidence and detailed consideration. In the above
circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the
matter for fresh consideration. Parties shall appear before the E.I.
Court on 6.8.2008.
Both appeals are allowed by way of remand.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
P.N.RAVINDRAN
JUDGE
tks