Karnataka High Court
M/S Tumkur Co-Operative Milk ... vs The Assistant Director Regional Office on 13 August, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.Manohar
IN THE HIGH comm' or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13'?" DAY OF AUGUST 2010
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE mm. JUSTICE 11.1.. MANJL1pI.étr1g' ff: "
AND A »
THE HON'BLE MR. Jvsfrzes B.' .. it Q'
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL.,:No.378§,<2Ge7 (Eel)
M/ s. Tumkur Cowoperative Milk Proclt1V_cel'1*sl'lb
Societies Union Ltd., V .
Mallasandra, B H Road,»
Tumkur Taluk,
Tumkur.
Rep. by its Man.agingl:AVDlf.feeter. " ._
Dr. TGurulingaiah. _ _ _' Appellant
{By Sri Pradeep 'S'Sawkar..[Ae..V..,'
M/s. Sundaraswétnfly, .vRa1nda.s'8t..'Anand, Advs., for appellant]
AND"
The zilssistar-.t_V1;:';Aec1;gf! _
Regionai1._Office u(Ka.rna.taka;},
zssxc, No.10," -Binf1yt_ield::{
Bi"1mypet,
Banga}.ore--560 ' Respondent
E\Iarasiffil1a Holla, Adv., for respondent)
ntittnw
ll I:fI?nis"l\/Iiscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 82(2) of the
1948, against the order dated 17.1.2007 passed in ESI
(D>/.
Application No.2/2005 on the file of Judge. E81 Court, Bangalore,
setting aside the Applicationounder Section 75 of the ES} Act.
This Appeal coming on for hearing this day,
delivered the following: « L" 5 .
JUDGMENT
The appellant. being aggrieved by o*f_it--sh: L filed under Section 75 of the Employees State«-Inlsuranclevifiloyt, {loaf short, the 'ESI Act') before the Emplojfeee» State" ~.lnSai'a1doe tlourt in E S I Application No.2/2005 dated' 2O(')V7'; has preferred this Appeal.
2. "me app1icatio_n"w;aa' filed 'thetidorder passed by ES} Corporation under Act dated 18.4.2005. wherein the respondent the contribution payable by the appellant at Rs.21",t?ff5,96l.Z,{--aufor' period from April 1998 to March 2004, ' x' I 1eVa1§nedx"--~.C_ounsel for the appellant, relying upon the judgment .oVflt'I_1e Court in 2010~--II--LJJ~860 (MANAGING VD§®CHmz'HaSSfiV'cotuaamnve MHK PRODUCERS socmny {h:amoN€LmanfiIrté" AssmHaAn'REoKmwM;LmREcmoR,1muPLoYEEs' 'figgfimwwmmmcwwwwnmammmmumumqmamummdm 'Appeal is answered in favour of the appellant herein in the §%/ aforesaid case and relying upon the said judgment, he requested the Court to allow the Appeal.
4. The question involved in the aforesaid question involved in the present case are similar andtttiief sa;ird"Appea1» up also is in respect of a Milk Producers' Societyjofi.i¥£assar1,'"Now'."'--.ifi?1.the present case, it is in respect of 'I'umkur._ _p
5. Therefore, in View of vthp .._the&'HoIi'b1e Supreme Court, We allow this Appeal the ES} Court dated 17th of January J:§zo'.eV"/'2o05 is hereby set aside. Consequently" vi8Fh:«'of 2005 passed by the B381 Corporation' "'cfe-the Act, determining the contribution payabie at is hereby set aside. If any amount °is._§1ep¢'s:téd the appellant before the E81 Court, the entitled to eiaiin refund of the same. Sd/-E \ JUDGE sd/-
JUDGE