BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08/02/2006
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGA PERUMAL ADITYAN
C.M.A.(MD)No.705 of 1998
The Regional Director
E.S.I.Corporation
Tamil Nadu Region,
143, Sterling Road,
Chennai-600 034 ... Appellant
Vs
1. Ms. Ambika Industries rep.
by Managing Partner D.Ramanjam
2. The Tahsildar
Taluk Office
Town Hall, Trichy-2
Respondent -2 is not necessary
party in appeal. Hence it is given up.
... Respondents
Prayer
Appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act
against the Judgment and decree passed by the learned E.S.I.Court/Principal
District Judge, Thiruchirapalli in E.S.I.O.P.No.15 of 1989 dated 4.07.1997.
!For Appellants ... Ms. J.S.Murali
^For Respondents ... No appearance-R1
M/s.K.Sanjay
G.Vijaya
:JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred against the order of Employees Insurance
Court/Principal District Judge, Thiruchirapalli in E.S.I.O.P.NO.15 of 1989 dated
4.7.1997.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner in E.S.I.O.P.No.15 of 1989 namely M/s Ambika Industries rep.by
its Managing Partner T.Ramanujam had challenged the order of the first
respondent dated 26.9.1983(EX A5).As per the order dated 26.9.1984, E.S.I
Contribution for the period from 3/92 to 11/83 amounting to RS.9,009/- was not
paid by M/s Ambika Industries/respondent/petitioner herein challenging EX A5
order, M/s Ambika Industries through its Managing Partner had preferred this
E.S.I.O.P.No.15 of 1989.
3. The respondents have filed counter contending that respondent had sent
Ex A1 notice demanding to pay E.S.I.Contribution for the period from 6.3.1982 to
1.9.1983 and as per Ex A1 notice, the respondent had appeared before
E.S.I.Corporation and filed C18 form admitting that he is liable to pay
E.S.I.Contribution but for the subsequent period, he has failed to pay
E.S.I.Contribution for which a notice under Section 45A of the E.S.I.Act was
given.
4. Before the E.S.I.Court on the side of the petitioner Exs A1 to A5 were
marked and P.W 1 was examined. On the side of the respondent R.W.1 was examined
and Exs B1 to B6 were marked. After going through the oral and documentary
evidence, the learned Principal District Judge has passed an order in favour of
the petitioner after setting aside Ex A5 order dated 26.9.1984. Aggrieved by
the orders of the learned Principal District Judge in E.S.I.O.P.No.15/1989 dated
4.07.1997, the E.S.I. Corporation has preferred this appeal.
5. The substantial question of law that arose for consideration in this
appeal is whether the order passed by the E.S.I.Court/The Principal District
Judge,Trichirapalli in E.S.I.O.P.No.15 of 1989 dated 4.7.1997 is liable to be
set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal?
6. The Point:
Learned E.S.I.Court/The Principal District Judge, Trichirapalli relying on a
decision reported in E.I.D.Parry (India) Limited-vs-The Regional Director,
Tamil Nadu Employdees State Insurance Corporation,Madras(1995 I MLJ 261) had
come to a wrong conclusion that Ex A5 is barred by limitation. Learned counsel
appearing for the appellant would contend that for Ex A5, the respondent had
sent a reply notice in Ex A6 admitting their liability and send a sum of
Rs.1,000/- towards
E.S.I.Contribution. In Ex A6, Ex A5 has been referred to. Since the respondent
has failed to pay the future E.S.I.Contribution Ex.A7 notice was issued under
Section 45 (A) demanding the future E.S.I.Contribution for the period from
31.1.1982 to 26.11.1983. So Ex A6 cuts at the root of the defence of the
respondent that claim is barred by limitation. Even in the year 1984, the
respondents have admitted their liability and paid part of the
E.S.I.Contribution. P.W.1 is the Manager of the respondent factory, who in his
cross examination has also admitted that upto January 1982, 20 employees were
worked in their factory and since he has failed to produce the records to the
E.S.I.Corporation, he was convicted by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate,Trichirapalli and he has further admitted that as per Exs A3 and A4 ,
he had paid the part of the E.S.I.Contribution. Under such circumstances, the
findings of the E.S.I.Court/The Principal District Judge, Trichirapalli that the
claim is barred by limitation is an erroneous finding as rightly contended by
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant which is liable to be set aside
in this appeal. Hence, I hold on the point that the order passed in
E.S.I.O.P.No.15 of 1989 on the file of the E.S.I.Court/The Principal District
Judge, Trichirapalli dated 4.7.1997 is liable to be set aside for the reasons
stated in the memorandum of appeal. The point is answered accordingly.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed in
E.S.I.O.P.No.15 of 1989 on the file of E.S.I.Court/The Principal District Judge,
Trichirapalli dated 4.07.1997 is hereby set aside. Time for payment of
E.S.I.Contribution is one month. No costs.
sg
To
The Employees State Insurance Court
The Principal District Judge,
Thiruchirapalli.