Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 20 November, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
FAO No.4007 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.4007 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision:20.11.2013
M/s Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ....Appellant
Versus
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Faridabad & another ....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to
see judgment?
2. To be referred to reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present:- Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate
for the appellant.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)
Employees State Insurance Court vide order dated 28.02.2005 upheld the payment of ` 1,28,745.72 paisa against the appellant-Company raised by the respondent-Corporation. Against the aforesaid order dated 28.02.2005, appellant filed a review petition on 16.7.2005 which was dismissed vide order dated 27.5.2011 by the Employees State Insurance Court, Gurgaon.
The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment of the ESI, Court, whereby the demand raised by the respondent-Corporation was upheld.
There is a delay of 2948 days in filing the present appeal. Along with this appeal, an application for condoning such a huge delay has also been filed. In the application for condonation of delay, Kadian Savita 2013.11.23 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.4007 of 2013 (O&M) 2 it has been averred that the appellant-Company was never informed about the case proceedings and its final decision. The appellant- Company was under a bona fide impression that the case was still pending and it was only on 9.7.2012 when its Executive (Legal), IDPL received a message from Gurgaon Plant that they were called by the ESI Court with regard to liability. Thereafter, the Executive (Legal), IDPL moved an application under RTI Act, seeking detailed information and documents from the ESI Court, Gurgaon. However, no information was received and thereafter, he received some incomplete information from ESIC Gurgaon in an application moved under RTI Act. Thereafter, in appeal also, they had applied for some documents which revealed that they had some litigation in ESI Court, Gurgaon and keeping in view the aforesaid facts, a review petition was filed which was also dismissed on 27.5.2011. Since the details of these documents were not fully furnished and were supplied to him only on 10.5.2013, the Executive (Legal) met Shri M.P.Gupta, Advocate of the company who told him that the case was decided long ago, thereafter, a review petition was also dismissed on 27.5.2011. Thereafter, the Executive (Legal) IDPL applied for certified copies of impugned orders and thereafter, the case was put up for necessary approval and the instant appeal was filed on 24.5.2013 and in this process delay of 2948 days has occurred.
It is the further case of the appellant-Company that the Company was declared a "SICK" industrial company on 12.8.1992 and more than 6400 employees were retired under VRS scheme. Kadian Savita 2013.11.23 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.4007 of 2013 (O&M) 3 The employees engaged by the appellant-Company on contract basis were not feeling any sense of responsibility because there was no accountability on their part and there was no employee in the Legal Department after February, 2011 and after a long period in November, 2011, an employee was transferred from IDPL Rishikesh Plant and since the case was not brought to the notice of the higher authorities and the single regular employee in the Legal Department, was also facing difficulty in monitoring the running cases of all the Units of IDPL including those of IDPL Corporate office. Thus, the factum of pendency of the instant case could not be noticed and it caused the delay and therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, delay be condoned and appeal be heard on merits.
Counsel for the appellant has been heard and the averments made in the application has been carefully considered.
However, this Court is of the view that from the plea taken, it is clearly established that the appellant-Company was totally negligent about pursuing its remedy before the ESI Court, Gurgaon. Admittedly, before ESI Court appellant was represented by its counsel and the matter was decided by the said Court on 28.02.2005. The plea taken on behalf of the appellant that the final decision was not conveyed to the Company is palpably false as admittedly a review petition was filed by it which was dismissed on 23.5.2011. In case, the Company was not informed about the decision of the ESI Court, how could it file the review petition. Again Kadian Savita 2013.11.23 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.4007 of 2013 (O&M) 4 the plea taken by the Company to the effect that the necessary information was not provided by the respondents with regard to the Court proceedings and the same could be received only through RTI Act is liable to be rejected as admittedly appellant could have contacted his lawyer and got the necessary information as has been done by the Executive (Legal) in May, 2013. No reason is forthcoming as to why such procedure was not adopted earlier by its employees. Admittedly, some employees of the Company are still monitoring all the Units of IDPL including those of IDPL Corporate office. However, it cannot be accepted that those officers could not made out about the pendency of the case before the ESI Court and its decision. There must be some record of the Company with regard to the instant litigation about which nothing has been mentioned in the application. Review petition must have been filed through a counsel and he must have been paid his fee also and there must be some meeting note or agenda note in the records of the Company along with other document but nothing is brought out on the file.
In this view of the matter, the plea taken is without any merit. There is no justification for condoning such a huge delay of 2948 days in filing the instant appeal. Thus, prayer made in the application is rejected. Resultantly, appeal is dismissed.
November 20, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
savita JUDGE
Kadian Savita
2013.11.23 11:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh