[211] Harish Kum Employees Sector 19- Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] passed by under Secti demand rai [2] (Annexure evidence b employed establishme [3] Section 1 exceeds 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA FAO-1877 Date of De sh Kumar Mittal Versus loyees State Insurance Corporation, -A, Chandigarh HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. G.S. Bains, Advocate for M for the appellant. Mr. H.S. Bhatia, Advocate for (Through V.C.) **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The present appeal is directed d by the ESI Court, whereby petiti r Section 75 of the Employees’ State I nd raised by the Corporation has been Counsel for the appellant ha exure R-11) to claim that even as nce by the respondent-Corporation oyed with the establishment was lishment cannot be held to be covered Mr. Bhatia, counsel for the on 1 of 1948 Act to submit that on eds 10, the establishment gets covered T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 1877-2000 (O&M) of Decision : 11.03.2026 …Appellant ….Respondent PANKAJ JAIN for Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the respondent-ESIC. rected against Order dated 11.03.2000 petition filed by the establishment State Insurance Act, 1948, impugning s been dismissed. lant has relied upon inquiry report n as per the document adduced in oration, the number of workmen was less than 10 and thus, the vered within the ambit of 1948 Act. r the respondent-ESIC, relied upon that once the number of employees vered under the provisions of 1948 .2000 ment gning report ed in kmen , the upon oyees 948 RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.13 17:37 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-1877-2000 (O&M) -2- Act irrespective of the fact whether subsequently the employees are less or not. He submits that in terms of inspection report (Exhibit R-2), the number of employees employed with the established was 11, i.e. more than 10. It is in these circumstances that the ESI Court dismissed the petition filed by the establishment under Section 75 of the 1948 Act upholding the demand raised by the Corporation. The joint preliminary inspection report (Exhibit R-2) found that there were 11 workmen employed with the establishment and also specifies their names, designations and monthly wages. [4] Counsel for the appellant has not been able to furnish any information with respect to the joint preliminary inspection report (Exhibit R-2). The ESI Court, while upholding the demand raised by the Corporation relied upon Exhibit R-2. Since Exhibit R-2 which is prior in time shows that the number of employees is more than 10, the inspection report (Exhibit R-11), which is for the subsequent period, even though shows that the employees are 08 i.e. less than 10, cannot have any effect of ousting the establishment from the purview of 1948 Act. [5] In view thereof, this Court finds no merits in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed. [6] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 11.03.2026 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.13 17:37 I agree to specified portions of this document