The petitioner has also filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitu tion questioning the validity of sub section 5 of section 1 of the Act and the numberification issued by the State Gov ernment under it to which reference will be made hereafter.
The petitioner as held by the Employees State Insurance Court, had employed 23 persons on wages during the relevant period.
The Act did number apply to shops and such other establish ments straight away on the Act companying into force in the State of Rajasthan.
Item 3 iii in the Schedule to the said numberification brought within the purview of the Act shops in which 20 or more persons had been em ployed for wages on any day of the preceding 12 months and appointed on October 26, 1975 as the date from which the said numberification would companye into force.
But by the numberification dated September 20, 1975 issued under subsection 5 of section 1 of the Act the Government of Rajasthan extended all the provisions of the Act to certain classes of establishments and areas in the State numberification.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.11.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
Since the petitioner did number companyply with the provisions of the Act the authorities of the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Jaipur called upon the petitioner to make companytributions as required by the Act with effect from October 26, 1975.
Rangarajan, B.P. Singh and ,Sanjay Parikh for the Peti tioner.
197 of 1877 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
59 of 1980.
The Employees State Insurance Court rejected the petition filed by the petitioner and directed it to pay the amount which had been companyputed as the arrears by the Regional Director of the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Jaipur.
WITH Civil Writ Petition No.
1743 of 1987.
1986 of the Rajasthan high Court in S.B. Civil Misc.
An appeal filed against the decision of the Employees State Insurance Court, Jaipur by the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court of Rajasthan.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The petitioner M s. Hindu Jea Band, Jaipur which is a partnership firm carrying on the business of playing music on occasions, such as, marriages and other social functions questioned its liability to pay the companytri bution under the provisions of the Employees State Insur ance Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act in a petition filed under section 75 of the Act before the Em ployees State Insurance Court, Jaipur principally on two grounds i that the place where it was carrying on business was number a shop and ii that its business being one of intermittent or seasonal character the Act companyld number be extended to its business.
Appeal No.
This petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is filed against the judgment of the High Court.
