BETWEEN: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF A} CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWA' Ij.» ' "-1 .f: DATED THIS THE 30TH DA}! 0;? V! E R BEFOfiE V':A % THE HONBLE MR.JiI$*r:cE M. F. A, N0.3.7§&§i2'0O5 333:3, 1. THE ASSIS_TAIfF. DIRECYFQR, ES: C(jRPO?if-EA'I'i£f§'N, ' '§IKE?I?L§}¥.._»SHO«PEE,-- % SARVODAYA. CIRCLE}, KESHAWAPUR, HUBLI 530 023; 2, _f THE RECOVERY OFFICER, 1:331 CQRPORRTION » , SHOPEE, -- S'AR'JOD:}?.YA CIRCLE, KESHAWAPUR, HU'I3LI;580 023. APPELLANTS Narasimha Holia, Adv.) ~ " s 1¥~:REE SHIVALINGESHWAR INDUSTRIES, . Vjopp; KMF DAIRY, HUMNABAD ROAD, GULBARGA, BY ITS PROP: BASAVARAJ SHAHABADI. RESPONDENT
W5″
(By Sri. H N KASAL), Adv.)
– This I\.tI.F.A.is filed under Secfloe~S§:i2) the_
Act, 1948, praying to set asivde”ti1e’o;:fde1.’ dated 2;3.’;i;O05
in ES! Application No.35/2Q03_-,–[Q11 the..iile”of.__. ~;»;,’3. ESE’–_ _.
Court at Hubli, and etc._
This MFA eomi;1g’~~._pi3, for” beam. V day, the
Court passed the ” F
It is meppcaseeetorthe that they are duly
registered provieiotasidoi; the Karnataka Shops
aigd «V3-tztzibiishment Act, 1961, and are
engdagedt of dal and sale of dai
3 ._§pfoductsL’ -A the establishment has not employed
A m._of*ep 8 employees at any point of time and are
the attendance and wage regsters. The
Inspector inspected the establishment on
At 1999 and the applicant produced all the relevant
‘ “records before him, but he did not verify the records
properly. The Inspector also did not furnish any copy of
the obsezvation report and he recorded the report
WK’
according to his wish and will and on the basis;
same, the appellant issued a letter to the
asking him to work out the a:a1o_tmt_ of ” »
respect of purchase of machineriesgi
etc. and thereafter, the misjsuede . L’
form C- 18.
In response tot’ the the respondent
brought it to tile that the said
of machineries and
~hi1t…eaid reply was not considered
by the appeilants The respondent contends,
since the is in respect of the purchase of
‘inaei1in–et*iese~.Vand transportation charges, the same is
not aV_.”W_aIge” as defined under the provisions of the
ppfilmpiogg-tees State Insurance Act, 1948. Their
it g_centribution cannot be claimed or paid on the said
% ‘V —-aeeount. The appellants without considering the case of
the respondent, treated the entire amount paid towards
pumhase ef machineries and txansportation charges as
We
“Wage” and determined the contribution on thatétnaount
and passed an order under section 45A of
said order was challenged by the 3 d»
Employees State ‘
ESI.No.35/20O3, whereinf:~.e-ya my e
impugned order passed aside.
Hence, the present dd
2. sri;V.M.sshee1ava;;t,1ea1j:ed Counsel for the
the findings recorded by the
ES! is the records of the case. He
contends is error in the impugned order,
‘ as”‘1nu.ch._as, the amount claimed as ‘wages’ cannot be
._ since the same was towards purchase of
niecf1–inefies. In support of his contention he reiied on
” ~ the decision reported in 1994 sum-L43; sec 530,
Modella Wollens Ltd. Vs. ES! Corporatrion.
of?”
by the 15* appellant should have contained
While passing the impugned order. The
any reasons would, therefore,Mrender””i}”a.e’_- aiinpagn_ecia
order as null and void.
raised by the respondentfi ”
the amount expended, have
rightiy considered passed an
appropriate order. therefore, has led to
the and void. In View of the
fmding ‘Court, that the order passed
by the dtiereft of any reasons, it would be
apempfiate to direct the 15* appellant to
the matter afresh and pass orders in
law, afier hearing both the parties.
” For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated
4,/ff”.g,i3;20o5 passed in ESL35/2003 by the es: Court,
. ___5Hubli, and order dated 29.1.2002 passed by the I
Appellant in Case N0.KAR.INS.II.SRO.HI8L.5337829-O9
fir”
dated 29.1.2002, are hemby quashea.
stands Iemittnd to the 2 Appczllant to; ”
appropriate orders in accordanée w:iti}’1aW.afie”
both parties A11 contenfioffiaye lfiéptg
Accordingly, 111% {iii