IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S B~0l..5A;NNEg 1 " E
IVi.F.A. NO. 1363/2Q0?A{ESEi)_°_ E '
I BETWEEN :
THE JOINT DIRECTOR
E.S.1. CORPORATION
NO.}O, BINNY FIELDS ;
EANGALORE--560 023 ...APPELLANT
{BY SR: V F
AND:
M/S GOETZE '17N_D_IA?.LT£).';«~.,_ .
BANGALORE e560 0654. 2 "
REP. BY ITSGENERAL. = _ ~
MANAGER (H'Z?_&IR} RESPONDENT
'0 0' --.(BYi-éR1'..'B O ADV. FOR
» .. M/1SB_HO*O1_¢>ALAN LAW ASSOCIATES, ADVS.)
'*.."'VA"r1~:IS"'."Sjs-LEPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.82 (2) OF ESI ACT.
AGAENST' ORDER DATED 19.10.2006 PASSED IN
ESI.A.NO,V 55 / 2004 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ESI COURT,
" ALLOWING THE APPLICATION.
E. E-'This Appeal coming On for hearing, this day, the
' Cgourt delivered the following :
.£
4-.
JUDGMENT
The appellant-ESI Corporation is before
assailing the order dated 19.10.2006 4_
Application No.55/04. The said :order.i’s”,a ‘ j
passed in four applications Whichiitwereil pending».beforedthe
Tribunal. Among four applications, the
and the application Storms damages
as ordered by the ESI Section 858 of
the Employees i.(_l_i_eTreinafter referred to
as ‘the by the said order has
set it holding that the
damages’ are_not._payable:i1’i”the instant facts of the case.
«theclearned Counsel appearing for the
“per-u.sed the appeal papers.
3.-._”Th’:e appellant~ESI corporation had initially passed
,i:an…_prde’r.. under Section 45A of the Act holding that the
.0 it-espondenbcompany is liable to pay contribution in
i.
1′-
respect of certain incentives granted to its employees
inasmuch as it forms part of the wages. The saidlrissue
was agitated by the respondent herein before
which ultimately resulted in appeals bef_ore’iri..
MFA Nos. 1339/ 1999 and 5628/ 1998. in tthesaid
the issue was concluded holding that the
liable to pay the thereto, the
contribution was requii’e:d.to.’pa’idv’:Aarid’according to the
appellant-Corporation in payment of
the ‘said the damages were
levied In the instant case,
the darnagels 14, 151 /– was levied by order
dated 19.é.4:3p0o4l ” t
V Court, while considering the contentions
order, has referred to the aspect relating to
lV._damageus”:. at para-16 of its order. In this regard, after
note of the rival contentions and also taking note of
contents of Regulation 31C of the Act has come to the
t
I’:
5
paid and in any event, when the matter was pending
consideration before the ES} Court itself certain amounts
had been paid and therefore, the question of
damages would not arise.
7. In the light of what has been contelnde’d’,,’_:in i it
view, the decision of the Hon’ble “Suprernell’C_o’t1rt «A1-¢rei4i4ed
to by the learned Counsel for res.pondent:wo’uid not be
applicable to the present facts—ofthle-.case’inasrnuch as in
the instant case, the darnagest. by the appellant-
corporation orglyfifor litigation between
the parties had ended in the earlier
appeals in _ /1999 and 5628/1998.
Therefore, what is to be noticed in the instant case is as to
respondents herein have deposited the
Leon-t_rib’utien had been determined within reasonable
_ time”—aft__er disposal of the said appeals. The said
{asipect is “clear from the document available on record. In
.’ this regard it is seen that the earlier appeals were disposed
t
.,,u
of on 17.02.2003. The document at Ex.A7 which was
marked before the E81 Court would indicate the details of
the payments which were made. It is no dou§ot”.tra’e–.e:that
certain amounts were paid during the perifdency:
proceedings both before the ESI’°Co’urt_
before this Court. The very same d’Qcu.rnent.’would~ inmtiieatepp
that after such payment, a of: /0′
arising from the entire’: after the
disposal of the appeal. is no dispute
that the said” the respondent
company indicate that there is
delay oi7._one ‘date of determination by this
Court. aspect is kept in view, the ES}
not justified in setting aside the entire ciaim for
0’ darnage’s¢.: ‘ * ‘_’ 2′
‘C8. come to the above conclusion, the issue
0″~.4..’*for consideration is as to whether the appellant-
“‘-Corporation theinseives have passed an appropriate order
«i,
A
under Section 858 of the Act. In this regard. as already
noticed and also as extracted by the ES} Court itself, the
regulation 31C of the ES} (General)
would contemplate the rate at which the d&i’1u€1i§€s’l-l.are tabbed
ievied keeping in View the de1ayed,:4paiynli7entiy.. C
a perusal of the order impuggnedllhefore
would indicate that even appe.llant~corp0ration
have noticed all contentionsll-whiclh’wereputforth before the
authority conc4f::f’I1__€id, the damages
has been llciearly indicated with
reference-Vto”‘the;:’p:erio.d at which it is to be
levied.1′:’fI’hereioVre’;’V-~ circumstance, it would have
been appropriate Court to set aside the said order
the.._.__matter to the original authority for
pl ifeconsivderation. However keeping in View the position that
afte’rlheai’irig..e:the parties, at this stage, this Court has come
to thevficonclusion that the E81 Court was not justified in
aside the order in its entirety and also since the
dates relating to payment is clear, and also noticing that
t
9:
the respondent-wzornpany had paid certain amounts during
the pendency of the initial dispute relating to contrihution
when the matter was before the ESE Court anc;i”‘this.__’Cioi__iit,
it would be appropriate for this Court»
discretion and levy an appropriate d
be paid so as to draw the curtainsdwdon the _tiravJ,_n;.
litigation.
9. In the demand is for a sum pf to the same, the
respond-en.t_sA”‘~»yhatie a sum Rs.4,000/-.
Therefore,’* =b§aI’an<:e of the amount, the
respondent:eompan'y_shall pay Rs.5,000/–Which shall be
by theappellantcorporation as full and final
claim towards damages.
*~ Hence with the above modification of the order
pf Court, the present appeal stands disposed of with a
direction to the respondent herein to pay the said sum of
4,
r’
Rs.5,000/- within a period of three weeks from the date of
receipt 9f a copy of this judgment.
sd/…& e {i:
ake /bms