M/S.Mobile Cente v. Employees State Insurance Corpn

V.B.GUPTA, J. Bhatti/rb

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI FAO No.69/2001 & CM No.129/2001 % Judgment reserved on: 9th September, 2009 Judgment delivered on: 13th October, 2009 M/s Mobile Centre (Petrol Pump), Rajendra Market, Near Tis Hazari Exchange, New Delhi-110 054 ….Appellant Through: Mr. K. N .Kataria, Adv. Versus Employees" State Insurance Corporation. Through its Regional Director, Regional Office, DDA Shopping-cum –Office Complex, Rajindra Place, New Delhi. ….Respondent. Through: Nemo Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 82 of Employees" State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short as "Act") against order dated 9th December, 2000, passed by Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, vide which petition of appellant was dismissed. 2. Brief facts are that appellant is a partnership concern and is running a Petrol Pump near Tis Hazari. Its records were inspected in the year 1984, 1987, 1988 & 1990 by the Inspector of respondent- Corporation. On 15th May, 1980, appellant was informed by respondent that attendants of the Petrol Pump are not covered under the Act. It is further alleged that on 3rd February, 1988, respondent, informed Delhi Petrol Dealers Association that coverage of Petrol Pump would be enforced from 1st January, 1987, but appellant was covered from 29th September, 1981. Appellant protested against it, but to no use. 3. The coverage of appellant with retrospective effect from 29th September, 1981, is wrong and illegal when earlier he was informed that coverage would be from 1st January, 1987. Moreover, coverage has been effected after more than seven years, which is not as per law. Appellant never employed more than twenty employees and Petrol Pump attendants are not covered. 4. Respondent in its written statement did not deny most of the averments made in the petition. However, it denied that respondent is estopped from covering the appellant from 29th September, 1981. It also denied that notification issued by Delhi Administration is not legal and coverage cannot be affected beyond seven years. Respondent also denied that, appellant did not employ more than twenty workers. 5. On 3rd August, 2009, when matter came up for hearing before this Court, only counsel for appellant was present. None appeared on behalf of respondent. The matter was listed for 9th September, 2009 for final disposal. 6. On 9th September, 2009, again none appeared for respondent. Under these circumstances, there was no option but to proceed with the matter. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for appellant have been heard. 7. It is contended by learned counsel that trial court wrongly held that appellant is covered under the Act, w.e.f. 29th September, 1981, ignoring the fact that appellant on the said date, was not employing twenty or more persons. 8. The issuance and contents of letter dated 3rd February, 1988 have not been denied by respondent- corporation. In fact, they admitted the same. Issuance of this letter is conclusive proof of undertaking of the respondent that corporation is not covering Petrol Pumps prior to 1st January, 1987. The same was in the nature of final order, which is binding on respondent for all times to come. 9. It is further contended that coverage of petrol pump of appellant"s firm w.e.f. 29th September, 1981 was not only in contravention of the official letter issued by respondent but was also retrospective in nature. Thus respondent is estopped by its own conduct, from covering Petrol Pump from a date, prior to 1st January, 1987. 10. In the pleadings, respondent had specifically stated that appellant firm is covered under the Act since 1987. Therefore, under the circumstances, there was no occasion for the trial court to hold that appellant firm is covered by the Act from 29th September, 1981. 11. Another co