H.R. Panwar, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated November 29, 1994 passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, whereby an application filed by appellant under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') was rejected. The learned E.I. Court reached to the conclusion that in the year 1986-87 and thereafter, 8 or more than 8 employees were working in the firm owned by the appellant and, therefore, covered by provisions of the Act. The E.I. Court further relied on statements of D.W. 1 Ravi Kumar and D. W. 2 Suresh Chandra Kaushik as also relied on Ex. 1-A, wherein at the time of inspection carried out vide Ex. A-1 by the ESI Inspector D.W. 2, Suresh Chandra Kaushik 10 persons were found working in the appellant firm. List of which is mentioned in Ex. 1-A bearing signature of one Shri Kesri Singh who was an employee of the appellant firm from October 22, 1987 to March, 1990.
2. The learned El Court further reached to the conclusion that the demand of Rs. 5900.60 raised by the EI Court on account of contribution due from the employee is not invalid and is in accordance with law. While deciding the point of limitation, the EI Court considered the application filed by the appellant to be within limitation.
3. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the appellant employer has filed this appeal. It is settled law that appeal under Section 82 of the Act shall lie from the EI Court only if it involves substantial question of law. In the instant case, I find no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for consideration. In this appeal, whether 8 or more than 8 employees on the relevant date of inspection were found working with the appellant firm, is purely question of fact. The learned EI Court relying on Ex. A11 and statements of D. W. 1 Ravi Kumar and D. W. 2 Suresh Chandra Kaushik, reached to the conclusion that at the time of inspection, 8 or more than 8 employees were found working and therefore, they are governed by provisions of ESI Act. According to the appellant, the appellant is running the business ot loading and unloading of goods from appellant firm and the persons engaged for loading and unloading of goods are not its employees. The point involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajkamal Transport and Anr. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad, 1996 (9) SCC 644 : 1996-II-LLJ-435 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that employees who are engaged for loading and unloading of the goods fall within the definition of the employees as their activities of loading and unloading is controlled by its employee It was further held that what is important is that the hamalis work for the establishment. The loading and unloading of the work is done at the appellant's directions and control and as such are covered by the provisions of the Act.
4. In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to Costs.