IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED Tl-I18 THE 13" DAY OF NOVEMBER
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTTCE c.R'.' '¥{L}r1.<xT<.AswAM.f«TVA['7_
MFA NO. 2273/2,o07VO('E$:.)
BETWEEN: O
M/5. Grand Pressings & TOQIS _
By its Proprietor J.G.Prasad' O ' .
S/0 Jayaprakash '
Kammagondanaha,Hi~.a I =
Jalahalii West .,
Bangalore-560 T APPELLANT
(By sn. s.\/. S.haAéOtri_.VAfijxrpcéte.) E
AND: 1' E O V V O O
The /¥¥...§g«sEs'Lant Re'g.iQnai_Director
'Regéo--n'ai1jOff5T--ce (Karfiétaka)
":_ESIfCQrpoT*aEéQ"n_,__ No.10,
B.§.rmi_~,* F*ie}'ds," E3'ér;VriTypet,
Ba'nga!'ore'~S"60fO23.
'%rl2_. The Recovrery Officer,
Corpcration, No.10,
' vE3inVny"'-fields, Binnypet,
'_:E{3ang'a'ibre~560 023. RESPONDENTS
Sré. V. Narasimha Holla and Smt. G. Lakshmi,
Ads:’ocates)
This MFA is filed under Section 82(2) of the Employees
State Insurance Act against the order dated 2S.;12._2’O_O6
passed in E.S.I. Application No.22/2004 on the .fii”e,”o.ff”.the
Court of the ESI at Bangalore, dismissing the.:a’ppi’i_’catie[1″‘.
filed under Sections 75, “76 8.: 77 of the ESI Act for ojvuashiirwg
of the notice bearing i\Jo.lS3-1′.i493}%67″VD’atesd 2
27.02.2004 etc.,
This MFA is coming on for,.h_eariVn’gA:’t*his day’.,.’A.the
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT”
F
This Miscellaneous .i:st3fi’!ed.,under Section
82(2) of the Emploj/e.es against the
order dated E.S.I. Application
No.22/200zis_on_ th’eir;0i~e_ ‘erthecoairt of the E51 at Bangalore,
dismissing the’t–a’pipVlicati”‘c;n »–fi:’|”e.d4V.under Sections 75, 75 a 77
of, the Act ‘:’oVrVVv_’___Hc;t.iashing of the notice bearing
No.0§<AR,'.Es:.c/c:e,,'53–11493-57 dated 27.02.2004 and for
perm.itt.ih'g' t'h'e\".",jap,pVl'icant therein to operate the accounts
_::"i'e..yy4i't"h,_'Ind§an. SS1 Branch, Peenya, Bangalore and for a
'._'_'di:refitioni"to the banks not to disburse the amounts to the
it authorities. The appellant herein seeks to set aside
'iitv.:_f't»h_ef'aforementioned order of dismissal and also to pass a
£2'
judgment against the respondents herein quashin-§r'»t.he
notice bearing I\iO.KAR/ESIC.CPw53–11493~67.
(2) On 30.10.2009 with the consent_ prmg;uiéiarnedrp A
counsei for the appeliant Sri S_.V, as.'v;if§.ie£»!
{earned counsei for the respondeirietffimt. 'junior
coiieague of Sri V. Narasinihae Hci"IVia:,f *th_is"i'm.atterV'waVvs heard.
(3) ouring tVh4e:A'cour;seV';'o':fE: 30.10.2009
iearned that petition
requesting contributions for the
period was submitted to the
Ernpioyee_s_Stait'e_Insu–.raAi'i_ce""':iVCorporation and on the said
pjéfi"g;.oi-y-':c.jEErn"p|gy¢es"St'ate Insurance Corporation passed an
oro'ér for reassessment of ESIC
T'vllicontribu'tii_ons"for the period in question cannot be
"44"_"cor-isidewcred as the matter is still under consideration before
Court. Therefore the iearned counsel for the
ap'pe!E–ants sought for a direction to the Empioyees State
1:
if
insurance Corporation to examine the petition for__ re–
assessment and pass appropriate order in accord&ance~4’fwit’h
law. Srrit. G. Lakshmi, junior colleague of Sri
Hoffa, learned counsel for the respondienlt”dildonotC.oi:=jVevvc’t’V”for«
the same. Therefore on 30.10u..200§i”tAh’is Cou,rtt_
order that the request for 0’V””r§_’;»assessm’ei1t ESIC
contributions shall be considered Corporation in
accordance with iawAwithinA,.th,re~e
Narasirnha :’–.ljio|_la;.0VV’t’h.e«v.._:|ieaprned~«counsel for the respondents
under section:ijE’_Si1Vvof_.CV§?Cii°praying to recall order dated
passed No.2273/2007. He has stated in
af:fi’daVvi–tA_V’fiI’ed”=in support of the application that the
:7’n.__above”a.p’peal’A*§&ias1’Vposted for final hearing on 30.10.2009
_fl~.ia.nd»ion that in view of some urgent work, he had been
and hence he could not persorialiy appear
‘ Vrfbeiforeleithe Court and address the arguments. He has also
‘iiV.:_é””sta:.t’ed in the affidavit that his junior coiieague Smt. G.
Q,
Lakshmi was also not able to fully prepare for the
address the arguments on 30.10.2009.
prayed for an opportunity to make his.
above appeal. This Court vide or;der::’_’_dalted’–j§’3.;:3.
passed in Mis<:.Cvl.20131/2009 ha,:s:"-Vrecalled_ t'he:vor"der"da:ted 0 l
30.11.2009 passed in this ap*pega~|""'-»a.nd "'g'rani't:ed an
opportunity to Sri V. Na'ra's,ai'n1h-adfaddress the
arguments. V
(S) To:r.ia§f thewarguments of Sri S.V.
Shastri, learned'. appellant and Sri V.
Narasimha_H.olla,'leaVrned ceunsel For Respondents ft and 2.
counsel for the appellant Sr: S.V.
::°uS_h’astri stibtnits he is ready and willing to pay on actuaf
Sri Narasimha Holla, learned counsel appearing for
1 and 2 does not oppose the same.
er