IN THE HIGH courvr OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALGRE
DATED THIS THE 07*" DAY or NOVEMBER 2008
aaesam _
THE HOEWBLE MR.3{JSTICE KSREEDHAR Rfied
AND I
we HOWBLE MR.JUST.[CE c.a.KuMAn.A.$\y%sAtv1${' I
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL I}4Lo.§35g3IQFI 2aaIS'
BETWEEN; A I I I I I I
THE REGIONAL OIRECTCR
ESI CORPORATION
NCLIO, BINNYFIELDS V '
BANGALORE --~ 560 023 p I . " g._APPELIANT
(39 San. g3::NAé{£$-5'IMHA'V'H0LLA;" ADQQCATE)
1 W8 HQSIAPPARELS (:3) LTD
No.83/13, sITg{No;~7 are
4 ;'T13-WAREKEREVMAIN ROAD
~"~:BAr§:c5,.a;.,oRE -:'5an.oa1
- I REPRESENTED BY yrs GENERAL MANAGER
* -. I A<:c0uNTsAN:: ADMINISTRATION ...RESPONDENT
éa.i.;_ S;’r\:”i«1uRTHY ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)
THIvS’M!I4SCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
82 (2) OFITHE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE ACT AGAINST THE ORDER
“DATED 31,._t’.20E35 PASSED IN E.S.I, APPLICATION NO.?2/2092 ON THE
A ” fII.E*..’OF THE JUDGE, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE COURT,
‘.BANGAl_«.ORE, PARTLY :3»LLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER
. “35 OF ESI ACT AND MODIFYING THE ORDER DATED 30.7.2002
PASSED UNDER SECTION 45-A OF ES} ACT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
RESPONDENT HEREIN IS LIABLE TO PAY CONTRIBUTION OF
RS.20,lG1-175 PS. ONLY ON THE AMOUNTS BOOKED UNDER THE HEAD
V’ REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS OAY, K. SREEBHAR RAD, J… DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
the quantum of contribution to be made. The _
an appiicatien by the respondent, set aside the.,o_teerVA..goe’ssetl” l
under Section 45 of the es: Act. Hence.’tnis.A’ppeéi.ny.:%theli’
Corporation.
3. Sri.V.Narasimha;__.HoileA,_…l.iVeern’ed l.:o’urisel_n§{or the
appeliant strenuously enquiry before
the authority, the _.resi:«’on’c.ie’ij:tv.j”oroduced the
necessary to show the
payments__rnVao’e.Vft’o’V«:.;g;he and that, the
outsourced’ agenweilesere eovered by the ESI Act. Since
no rnateriali’-whats the respondent, the order
_pessed’i§y’ the Assessivng iiiiuthority is sound and proper. On
1″‘thoughtful_v;””eoosi’eeration of the statements made by the
leolrn_ecl.§_;otivn*$eV.l__ferthe appeliant and the respondent, we are
Vvlnot irn;$’:=eseet% the contention of Sri.V.i\iarasimha Holie. It
snot diffiouit for the appelfanlt to have find out from its
4;feeo?lr:és**”Aes to whether the particulars given by the
Eespolndent is true or otherwise. The enquiry, under Section
of the E51 Act, wiil have the necessary moorings of a
inquisitorial enquiry. It does not prevent or_;”‘deba’r.j:_ti1:e”A_
Assessing Authority to issue notices to the named: V
agency to find out the truth of the
respondent. It is not like in a cié:i_i_ proceedings,Vthe..’.i:§
absolutely cast upon the respondent to proveieli facts.
when the respondent of the
outsourced agency, it information
furnished by that the aileged
fact of payment ti:a€e”‘outsourced agency is
not proyea;r Beet of this Court in
«batch of cases has held that
the i>aYVmuentsl””rn_edeV outsourced agency does not
:_vj”cenAstit-ute the usages ‘a’r’m’°does not warrant contribution. In
that yjiew. ofnjeitter, we find that the Appeal iacks merit.
: V’ ,_ Henc’e,._ dhismissedfl
.. 4,1, It issobservw that it does not prevent the appellant
t_:o.__’rnake**a fresh enquiry into the matter to find out the truth
-the submissions made by the respondent and if found
incorrect, it can determine the iiabmty of contribution _afieS–h;–.’..j:
The order of refund passed by the E51 Court is «
V V
KM