Dismissed

M/S Vision Metal Aids Pvt.Ltd. and Another v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Another

Uttarakhand HC1 Apr 2013AO/140/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed an appeal under section 82(2) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, challenging a dismissal of a suit seeking a declaration that the Act was not applicable to the appellant industry. The appeal was disposed of summarily without detailed reasoning.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed summarily; stay application also disposed of.

M/S Vision Metal Aids Pvt.Ltd. and Another Vs… — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

¶2

Appeal From Order No. 140 of 2013

¶3

M/s Vision Metal Aids Pvt. Ltd.

¶4

D‐17 Industrial Area Bahadrabad

¶5

District Haridwar through its Director

¶6

Shri Ashish Gupta

¶7

Ashish Gupta, S/o Shri S.P. Gupta C/o M/s Vision Metal Aids Pvt. Ltd.

¶8

D‐17 Industrial Area Bahadrabad District Haridwar

¶9

…………….. Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Employee State Insurance Corporation

¶12

Panchdeep Bhawan Sarvodai Nagar Kanpur Through its Deputy Director now substituted by Panchdeep Bhawan Wingh No. 4

¶13

Shivpuri Prem Nagar, Dehradun

¶14

Manager/Recovery Inspector Employees State Insurance Corporation Local Office of Haridwar at Hari Nagar In front of Classis Residency, Haridwar

¶15

…………… Respondents

¶16

Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate, present for the appellants. Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate, present for the respondents.

¶17

Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant,J.

¶18

Heard.

¶19

This appeal preferred under section 82(2) of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2013, passed by Employees State Insurance Court/Civil Judge (Sr. Div) Haridwar, in Suit No. 189 of 2013, whereby said court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff seeking

¶20

¶21

declaration that the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act are not applicable to its.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant (plaintiff/ industry) submitted that in suit no. 209 of 2003 relief was granted to one M/s Ganpati Traders Pvt. Ltd. by the court and the present appellant was entitled to relief on its basis.

¶23

However, on perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court shows that plaintiff could not show before the trial court that his industry runs with employees less than ten. It is specifically mentioned by the trial court that the area of village Ravli Mehdood and Jamalpur Khurd (in which the factory situated) were covered vide Notification No. F‐ 6/12/68‐HI(vii) dated 19.07.1970. The order dated 26.09.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar, in Suit No. 209 of 2003 shows that notification dated 07.07.1989 does not cover the Bahadrabad area. Said suit was filed by one Ganpati Traders (not by the present appellant or his predecessor) nor does that suit pertains to notification dated 19.07.1970, as such the decision in said suit is of no help to the present appellants.

¶24

¶25

In the above circumstances, this Court finds that there is substantial question of law involved in this appeal.

¶26

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed summarily. (Stay application no. 2736 of 2013, also stands disposed of).

¶27

Parul

¶28

(Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 01.04.2013

M/S Vision Metal Aids Pvt.Ltd. and Another v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vision Metal Aids Pvt.Ltd. and Another v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joga Ram Vs State of Uttarakhand

Smt. Deepa and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Om Prakash Joshi and Another Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sanjay Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand

Superintending Engineer and Another Vs M/S Aman Engineering Company

Manohar Lal Vs Balesh Prasad Jain