Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24079 Court No. - 5 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 349 of 2012 Appellant :- Employees State Insurance Corporation Thru. Its Regional Respondent :- Chaudhary Sweets House Thru. Its Partner Nand Lal Gurnani Counsel for Appellant :- Shishir Pradhan Counsel for Respondent :- Deepanshu Das,Yogesh Gurnanee Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard. 2. Under challenge is the order passed by the learned Employee State Insurance Court/ Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lucknow in E.S.I Case No. 01/1996 Inre; Chaudhary Sweet House Vs. E.S.I Corporation. 3. By the said order, the learned Court has set aside the recovery certificate dated 24.01.1996 and 26.01.1996 and the notice dated 07.02.1996 has been declared to be void and the respondents therein/ appellants herein have been restrained for recovering an amount of Rs. 99,831/- along with interest. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following grounds namely (a) the learned tribunal has failed to consider that the establishment of the respondents herein/plaintiff was covered by the provisions of the Employee Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1948) (b) the establishment was continuously paying the contribution and (c) the inspection report has not been considered by the learned tribunal. No other ground has been urged. 5. The aforesaid grounds are found to be patently fallacious. 6. So far as ground (a) is concerned, the Court has itself perused the original records from which it emerges that along with the fehrist were filed certain documents including a letter that had been issued by the Regional Director of the Employees State Insurance Corporation dated 28.01.1982 addressed to the establishment which indicates that the establishment has been awarded a particular code and the establishment is covered under the provisions of the Act, 1948 w.e.f 23.02.1981. 7. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the learned trial Court while deciding issue no. 1 wherein it has concluded that once the establishment has been covered w.e.f 23.02.1981 consequently, demand of any amount under the provisions of the Act, 1948 prior to the said date would not be correct in the eyes of law. Thus, the said ground is rejected. 8. So far as ground (b) is concerned that the establishment was continuously paying the contribution even prior to the said date, the said ground is also found to be patently misconceived considering the fact that once the establishment by means of the letter issued by the Corporation itself has been covered under the provisions of the Act, 1948 w.e.f 23.02.1981 and in case the establishment on its own accord has paid any contributions without realizing this fact then payment of the aforesaid contribution cannot be held against the establishment. Thus, the said ground is also rejected. 9. So far as ground (c) is concerned that the inspection report has not been considered, needless to mention that considering the aforesaid letter dated 28.03.1982, irrespective of any inspection that may have been conducted once the establishment itself has been brought under the provisions of the Act, 1948 w.e.f 23.02.1981 then it is for the establishment to pay the contribution w.e.f the date which has been brought under the provisions of the Act, 1948. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference with the order impugned is made out. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 11. Let the learned lower Court record be returned back. Order Date :- 25.4.2025/Pachhere/- Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench