IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATES THIS THE 15?" DAY 0:: JUNE,
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.\.{eNuGc>:s--AvL4}§;~_V.:;'e§;v<QA * 2
Miscellaneous First I-'\DD€a¥ N._S5é34 :"EE':'V~1fTEe.\e_A
BETWEEN: V % 1'
1. Employees State Insurance V'
Corporatienf Represented =
Its Regionaf Director,' '
Regionai Office, x
10, Binny Fie¥ds,_E>innyfp.et;_ '
Bangafore -- S_6.0.Q2.3. 1
2. The D€fJU'E§§~.D.f'F{fCfC5%"§_2..,,,_
E.S,I. Corpqrairierj, ' '
10, Bin:-wevfie'I':3s, Vi:':§é:,r*.ny';:».Ve't:--§'
Bangaiore _~ S€,aQQV23,% _ _' .,Appe%§am';s
(By SriXi,N'a;faSi:1fiheA':--i§5'i'{§:]'A'dv.,)
AND; 'V _
% ' - §;~i*S£; bf-.h'as'"M«_ Kamefffi 8+: 18,
' Ra\:.im;*-.rjva1na'*:h"Tagore Marg;
' Fest K:,m'j.§.i§et'§:i,..~~
Ud:.'1--_r:E =~ S75-:1{}2. ., Respendem:
; {eyuwg/é'V.M§'e,Naik anfi Asstsw, Adv')
AA Teis MFA is filed under sectéen 82(2) sf ESE Act
'x._ag.a§_;<§et the gudgmeet am erder dated i§.O2.2G{38 gassed
in ES} fixeefieatierz §'\ie'i.1,«'G2 en the fife ef the Presifiérzg
M€:_,15'fi:E€E¥', ESE mm Lamar Ceurt; §,§<, §'4a;§ge§:;:s'e, aiéewéeg
1%.)
the appiication flied under section 45-«A of ESE not far
determinaticzn of contribution. I
This appeai ceming on for aémission t:'fi§.é
Court deiivered the foiiewing:
JUDGMENT»
According to the appe'!._ianf;s...:'
establishment having nad»i'-empieveiéi ferwii'
manufacture of goid ornamen:%s,.',v:xivaVs iiesibie. covered
under the ESI Act with effect from
12.16.1989. Anintimetiijhni-.te'V..iii.e was sent to
the respondent;";:,efiicif,;1~.qiéesiioneii':'V.th:e""said intimation, by
filing ESIZ:.{\pi_i§’i;i&eafi’tari:..:f;;?’1..9’9’i the ESI Court at
Mangaiore. “Tii;.e_a”ap,u–i.i}:atVi_0r} _’ was dismissed for non
prosecuxt’inun”by’aVn’ 26.8.1997. Noticing the
dismiessai oi5″aA;.fspiication, the appeifants issued
” ‘”vsho'{x:.’:’ce’use’..noti<:esWiinder SASA of the Act seeking to
.:§iei;en*ni:neLt'iie".e{§~ntribution for the period from 1.18.2000
An erder was passed an 21.5.2802
"-.~.._"dire_,”.SfA3,687;~ with interest fer the eerieef :¥.2.:Q.198§ to
The eepeiiant eise issued snewggceuse neiiees
sf
dated 6.9.2081 and 13.2882 te the respondent, preposirzg
ta determine ESI ccmtribeticn fer ihe subsequent’ve.e’:*i_ed_,v
2, The resperadeet questioned the”‘4’.__:erdje% ‘
2135,2392 passed under $.45 ;a’*’efethAe”e.¢Acé: %égr2e:e_:’s;:’ {he 4
Show cause netices dated 6.V9.2O{ZiZ2__
Es: Apgaficetien 11/2002 ;¢g;;eess:e Cemtej’atVV””E’f§’ér%gVaIore.VV
The said appiieatien $3.3 ciis;*r1’i’s:.:”g%c¥’VV€5′::.’the§r’eur§ef that, on
acceunt ef dismissai 04? JESI for defauii:
on 26.8.19§?e,.[§r:ve reached finafiity
and the pg<:n¢i_,'2fe::'v- .3 re attracted.
tfiVe"~«.ffespen:§ent filed I'v'iFA 4886/2003
which eggs" aiiezagefiieffé"-§';9.'2QG5 and the impugned order
thefeéeef 'th:e"Ev:SI *Co.L:rt wag set aside and the ES:
$;3"';3iéi'<3:*i" ..1A'1/2ff§é;'Z9'éé~¢as directed te be hears: on merits;
mean the questien as is, whether it is
beejeé v_%}'g_;L34§':~'1:;s<:§;z;§es of res judieetee The ES: Ceert having
taken.' the matter, has gaessee the impugned .}:.3egr2*2ent,
""x_AAv%;§f2_e}?ee5i, it has eéieesed the aeefieetieri. Feeiieg aggrieved;
ifie E$: Qereeretéerz hes fiiee this aeeeei.
is
if?
.§
4. Sri \f.Narasimha He!ia,k’«£eé:~rrieci cegrzseé
appeltants raised severai cor*;-tsehtions”egairzesttjtheHirfiptugned’
Judgment and submitted s(§bst’a,htéa¥euestviens ef few
raised in the appeal mtereo fies E1r:;se_”ferr»;jeterminatieh.
5. Sr;A!e%;rhed_”Qcxtrfis-eE~’:for the respondent,
on the that, there is correct
dete::h1ihVe’tieir;_., the ES! Court and hence,
the imAp:::g’ned’}.ud3:jmer;t__’ti’ees not call for interference.
‘V6; HavVth’gV.h__eerd the teamed counsei on both sides
ar1c£V.,ha.visg>__perused the record; the question for
‘ *–d’e’tern.fih§atio’aV’is:
“.f’V_\A:’t!hether the impugned order is perverse and
estegaret
7. Undeniabiy, ES}: Application 3,/1991 was dismissed
fer defauit/hon prosecuticm en 26.8.1997′, The appeiiants
initiated further eroceedings; taking notice 0?’ the dismissat
ef ES: Appficetéerz 3/1991. The ercier passed by the
epeeéterzts under 3.45% :3? the Act and ‘th% 2 shew cause
er
/’fly
we
5
notices issued was questioned in ESI Applicatieh 11/2002.
The application was opposed by the appeiiants C0.r’g20’traVti0n
by fiiing its statement 01′ objections. The ap:j’fiee:’§ve_hF
decided against the respondent e_s~te.bi’i:s.hr0:eh.t
13.5.2003. However, the sarq jgidemeinf4._h’e§km0__’__Vbeen
chaiienged was set aside ih.*M4_FA
dated 5.9.2005 and the E31 xgxiasiidireeted hear ESI
Appiication question,
whether it is barred 0.¢ii,,r¢efg.I’_j;i2.§;i.icata.
8. ‘i:h-emioiiowing issues on
has taken note of and
has repr0dur:Ve”{1’~ impugned Judgment,
(i)'”*._ ” _ \i’§?’het.her.’:_”..’2’petitioner is not covered from
_ ji2′{10.’1989 under the erovisiens 0f
E.S’;’IfAct as contended?
:v”‘iV:::”-Whether order 01’ the respondent dated
j ‘A’;;.”‘2’Z1.Or:3,2{3C32 is iiabfe to be set aside?
{f_’i’ii}~. Whether the hetiee of the respendem’: dated
” 6.0.2001 and 2.32002 are iiabie to be set:
aside?
2
2′