1 2025:CGHC:39674-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 68 of 2012 The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, 18 South Avenue, Choube Colony, Now the Regional Office, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Ramnagar Road, Kota, Raipur (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1. ACC Limited Registered Under the Indian Companies Act with the Registrar of Companies Bombay, Regd Office at Cement House 121, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbay-20, Carrying On the Manufacture of Cement in the Name of Jamul Cement Works at Jamul, Tehsil & District Durg, Through its Plant Head, J.L.Tiwari. 2. Mr. I.M.Sharma (Vice President), ACC Limited, Jamul Cement Works, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Pranav Saxena, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.08.13 16:43:54 +0530 2 (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board (06.08.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation has preferred this appeal under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short “the Act of 1948”) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the Employees Insurance Court, District Durg (for short “ESI Court”) setting aside the order dated 22.05.2007 passed by the Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, under Section 45(1) of the Act of 1948. 2. This appeal preferred by the appellant/ Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation was admitted for hearing by this Court on 21.06.2012. By virtue of Section 82(2) of the Act of 1948, an appeal shall lie to this Court from an order of an Employees’ Insurance Court if it involves a substantial question of law. Though the appeal was admitted but no substantial question of law was formulated and accordingly this appeal involves the following substantial question of law. 3 “Whether the ESI Court is justified in holding that the employees of the respondent (ACC) is not covered under the definition of the employee as defined under Section 2(9) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 read with Rule 50 of the Employees’ State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950.” 3. The aforesaid substantial question of law arises for determination on the following factual backdrops. 4. The Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation has passed the order dated 22.05.2007 stating inter alia that the respondent ACC has not deposited contribution under the Act of 1948 for the period from 16.09.2005 to 30.09.2006 amounting to Rs.47,42,461/- and also the interest Rs.5,26,437/- directed to be deposited by the respondent herein within 15 days from the date of order. 5. Questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 22.05.2007 passed by the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, the respondent ACC filed a Case No.110/E.S.I./2007/Civil before the ESI Court -cum- Labour Court, Durg, under Section 77(1) read with Section 75 of the Act of 1948. The ESI Court by its order dated 18.10.2011 framed the following issues and answered the issues as under : 4 okn&iz’u fu"d"kZ 1- D;k vukosnd fjtuy Mk;jsDVj bZ-,l-vkbZ- dkiksZjs’ku dk vkns’k fnukad 22-05-2007 vuqfpr vkSj voS/k gS\ gk¡A 2- D;k vkosnd daiuh ds dkexkj bZ-,l- vkbZ- ,DV esa ifjHkkf"kr ÞdkexkjksaÞ dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrs gSa\ vkSj D;k bl dkj.k vkosnd daiuh bu dkexkjksa ds fy;s Þva’knkuÞ Hkqxrku djus dh tokcnkjh ugha gS\ gk¡A 3- D;k bZ-,l-vkbZ- dkiksZjs’ku }kjk vkosnd daiuh esa fu;ksftr dkexkjksa dh la[;k xyr vkadyu dh xbZ gS\ ;fn gka rks izHkko\ gk¡A 4- D;k vkosnd daiuh dk vkosnu /kkjk 75 ¼2½¼ch½ bZ-,l-vkbZ- ,DV 1948 ds varxZr viks"k.kh; gksus ls fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ ughaA 5- lgk;rk ,oa O;;A vkns’kkuqlkj fujLrA 6. The ESI Court, by its order dated 18.10.2011, held that the employees of the respondent are not falling within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Act of 1948 and therefore, the order dated 22.05.2007 is illegal and proceeded to set aside the order leading to filing of this appeal by the Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation. 7. Mr. Pranav Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the ESI Court is absolutely unjustified in holding that the respondent’s employees are not covered within the 5 definition of Section 2(9) of the Act of 1948 by recording a finding, which is perverse to the record and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the order of Regional Director dated 22.05.2007 deserves to be restored. 8. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay. Learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order and submit that in view of the notification issued by the competent authority, wages to the respondent’s employees were more than Rs.7,500/-, therefore, respondent/ACC was not responsible to make payment of contribution under the Act of 1948 and therefore, the order impugned is well merited and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. The dispute is with regard to the contribution of employees to be paid under the Act of 1948 for the period from 01.09.2005 to 30.09.2006. By virtue of Rule 50 of the Employees’ State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950, which provides the wage limit for coverage of employee under sub-clause (b) of clause (9) of 6 Section 2 of the Act for the relevant period from 01.09.2005 to 30.09.2006 would be Rs.7500/- per month. 11. It is a case of the ACC that for the period from 01.09.2005 to 30.09.2006, the employees working in the ACC, their wages were more than 7500/- per month, which was proved by the ACC witness Shrikant Nirmalkar and he has filed Ex.P-45 register relating to wages and the ESI Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, has clearly recorded a finding that for the said period the employees of ACC were getting wages more than 7500/- per month and therefore, they are not covered within Section 2(9) of the Act of 1948 and therefore, ACC was not responsible to make payment of contribution under the Act of 1948. It has further been held by the ESI Court that only 548 employees were employed in the ACC company and their wages for the relevant period from 16.09.2005 to 30.09.2006 was more than Rs. 7500/- and therefore, they are not covered under Section 2(9) of the Act of 1948 read with Rule 50 of the Employees’ State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 and, as such, proceeded to set aside the order dated 22.05.2007, which warrants no interference in jurisdiction of this Court under Section 82 of the Act of 1948. 7 12. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the ESI Court in the order dated 18.10.2011 is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and, as such, no interference is required in the said order. 13. In the result, the appeal has no merit and according it is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Ashok