Bombay High Court
SADANAND SHEENA BANGERA PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SAI ART PRINTERSversusTHE REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appeal was dismissed because it did not raise any substantial question of law, and factual determinations are beyond the scope of such an appeal.
Summary
The appellant, proprietor of M/s. Sai Art Printers, applied for ESI registration to meet a government contract requiring at least ten workers, but later reduced staff after the contract was not awarded. The ESI authorities alleged the firm failed to inform them of the reduced workforce and did not respond to notices, leading the ESI Court to find that the appellant did not discharge its onus of proving employment of fewer than ten workers between July 2009 and 2013. The appellant challenged this finding in an appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, arguing the matter was factual and could be rectified by a separate application. The High Court held that the appeal raised no substantial question of law and that factual disputes cannot be decided on appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered the interim application to be disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the ESI Court was justified in concluding that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving employment of fewer than ten workers from July 2009 to 2013
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Employees' State Insurance
- registration
- onus of proof
- substantial question of law
- appeal
- factual dispute
Judgment
HMK 11. FAST-18907-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 18907 OF 2021
WITH
Digitally
SAYYED signed by
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2338 OF 2022
SAYYED
SAEED SAEED ALI
ALI AHMED ALI
AHMED Date:
2026.03.25 Sadanand Sheena Bangera,
ALI 10:57:33
+0530
Proprietor of M/s. Sai Art Printers, Mumbai ….Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Regional Director,
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Mumbai & Anr. .…Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
Mr. Sahil Sayyed a/w. Mr. Lavanya Panickar for the Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. Saurabh K. Raut i/by Mr. Anand Kulkarni for Respondent No. 1.
__________________________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 24th MARCH 2026
P. C. :
1. This appeal is filed under Section 82 of the Employees’ State
Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948. The appeal is maintainable only on substantial
question of law. Though, no substantial question of law has been raised in
the appeal memo, on a perusal of the impugned order, following issue
would arise :-
Q.) Whether the Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Court was justified
in coming to a conclusion that the appellant has not discharged
its onus of employing less than 10 workers during the period
from July 2009 to 2013 ?
1 of 3
HMK 11. FAST-18907-2021.doc
2. In this case, learned counsel for the appellant states that they had
made an application for registration under Employees’ State Insurance
(ESI) Act on the premise that they would be getting a government contract,
which requires minimum 10 workers to be employed and the establishment
to be registered with Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) authorities.
However, after applying for registration, the appellant did not get the order
from the government authority and, therefore, it was decided by the
appellant not to continue with the excess workers, which was specifically
employed to meet the requirements of the tender. However, this was not
accepted by the Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) authorities and,
therefore, order came to be passed, which was challenged before the
Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Court.
3. In paragraph 18, the Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Court has
recorded that it is not disputed that the applicant firm has not informed the
said fact to the opponents by writing a letter. It is further stated that,
though applicant firm received Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Code
number, the firm has not informed the Employees’ State Insurance (ESI)
Corporation that it has employed less then 10 employees are covered under
the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Act and not prayed
for cancellation of the Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) registration. It is
also not disputed that no reply to Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) C-18
notice was filed. The Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Court has rendered
a specific finding that the firm has failed to discharge its onus by not
producing the evidence as to how many employees were employed during
the period from July 2009 to 2013.
4. There is also a finding that no records were maintained. It is also
important to note that the appellant has been taking the proceedings of
2 of 3
HMK 11. FAST-18907-2021.doc
Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) very leniently by not complying with
various notices. In paragraph 18, various admissions have been recorded on
this aspect.
5. In my view, these are pure questions of fact and does not raise any
substantial question of law. If the case of the appellant is that they had filed
a letter for cancellation, but there is a wrong finding recorded by the
Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Court, then appropriate course of action
would be to make an appropriate application to the Employees’ State
Insurance (ESI) Court for rectification. However, no such application is
made. This Court cannot go into factual aspects in an appeal, which is
required to be considered only on substantial question of law.
6. In view of above, in the absence of any question of law, appeal is
dismissed.
7. Appeal is dismissed in above terms.
8. Consequently, Interim Application does not survive and is disposed of
accordingly.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
3 of 3
Checking your session…