The Employees State Insurance ... vs M/S Ananthapadmanabha Mills on 25 September, 2008

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Employees State Insurance ... vs M/S Ananthapadmanabha Mills on 25 September, 2008

gm we %-E§GH seem" at: mmaram AT 8AE\§GA%_Q§.'E=,
saws we THE 25"?" ms: 6?" sapramsaa 2668' Q
garage _  %  _ f 
THE HGN'8i.E. MRJUSTECE §<.Mi;<EsHAvAs;A§w¢;§§'AF%¢
gvisscazmwaeus FIRST Appaapm 2:27;2easa--~_s;;  
sezgzwgegxs;     - '- 'V 

"2"?-VSE §%aI%?LC3"'z'§i~'E$ 3"':'§TE
i§'%£8i}'RﬁN{.§E CGRP{3F€A'¥'?C)€\§

Rééi'. 8'? R&G§ON,»&L D§REC'?OR
E.s.:.caRP0§sm0N
¥'»£G.'%G£.~"§!E\%N's' TSIELDS _
8A?\}<3ALQRE«55GG23  

, * '     APPELLANT
(By 3;; 'xf?°~%ARAS%E'v*€HA :»~&s:>eM:"Va£a§:§x;'.v}., ..   .. 

AND 1

Mis .I5afw§.é'-G-«$'¥'%i:-'33?/1;E3"--?*»4.%X%'iﬁaB§-§£?x~.j;ar§V§§;LS§ " _ " ,
K§J§_S?~§E!<ﬁaRg =%s§A:zt<3g»;A;LQF>:§.»5:?:"53£:e:3.§  
APAR?§£ER$.%}§P.FiRFﬁ:,; " ' 
REP. 32:' W8 PA'E3ff%\JER«V  ' _
SR1K.H;3§RES€3H:%N$S2.A'-SH»ET?*Y " _

 ' %   =    RE$§--'~"C}?\E{D~E€\ET
{By Sn 8 as ":3.HASTRa _AB'y".'} , 

.; 91%;:-% %a.a:s<:a:,§.A'NECsL;s FERST AP?Eﬁa§_ gs FELEED we 82{2} cw

 *  :HE[,E5$:;;s::":'..%_Az:;Aarx:s"*:*.--*2*s«-éa" ORDER 09.759 419.2394 PASSEEE ifxi as:
APF>:m:r:A*;123N 'r»go.7ze3 om THE FSLE OF THE PRESQWCB smegma

'L.AB{IIi}R._Ci3U«RT Ci_}M ES! CGURR MANGALORE5 ALLOWWG THE

 L.AP.£%:-:c,-213-QM FELED BY THE RESPC)§*~§DENT HEREIN LJIS ?5('i}(g'} GF

T'HE=.,ES? 'ﬁ&"FC--'-._?';;TO §ECLA§'*EE TRAT THE EMPLOYEES STEKTE
ii\éE3i_.§RA¥\éCE "f~'V&5.3'§" §S NGT APPLICABLE TQ THE APPLECANTS
ESTi3cBL€f§§~$§'a.EvE'§'~ET AME} TC) HGLD THAT YHE REEWONDENT HEREEN

 ES NOT 'UABLE T9 ?.«5{'.r' RS."i03398i- EEMANSES BY '53-ZE
" "'QCéRF3O§+T;~?2TiC%?'J TOWARBS CONTRISUTEQN AND i?=f¥"EF§'ES"?" FER
PEREGD 'i.=4.1Q94 TO 3'§K3.3§9? ANS ALSO THE F¥'E$?ONDENT
 '§j*§EREE--E'*§ i8 32(3)"? LEABLE T0 PAY R$;.8§§5'§ 4% SEMANUEE BY THE.

--  {J-OR?GRAT§{}N "KBWRRDS CONTREBUTEON UNDER EXM'! {QRDER

LES -="e5--A 0? THE ES§ ACT), FER THE PERKDD FROM 28.:'fi.'I§9O ti:

 '"3"i.3.'%9§4 AND 1.4.399? TO 3'§.3.2G{)'§ ANS SE"§'§'f¥'~é{3 ASEDE THE
 NGTECES ANS GRSERS MADE 8"?' THE CORPQRATEON E3EMA¥'~§DiF*~EG

€{3i'~i'%"F§'iE.%?.fE"!{D?~é £3 WELL £8 QNTEREST FOR THE éBQVESAi§3
PERQQ.

"$3-Q3 MESCELLNQEOUS ?%¥~2ST Rﬁﬁﬁﬁté, SOMENG 65% FOR
HEARWG THES BAY: THE CGUFET QELEVERES THE F0i.i.QW§NS:

 



&¥JDGME?~§T

This appea; is am under Section 32(2) af th¢;v'E'rﬁ§p§§§f§éj§T' _

State insurance Act, 1848 (for short 'the E82  E§§3'   9 

Carporatéon against the erdez' 

Presiding Gﬁicer, Labaur cum E_.S%  ?v%a§}§_';.*:>;E.é§§f"e"%2é
Appﬁcatéczz E\§<>.?i2G83 aéfcwing  a"$p'§§¢_a*%:%o%'z=  me
resgondent herein under, "$.e ¢€§onV"?5.{€§  t«§*:é:"E:'-i:§V: Act ané
deciarérzg that {he prmséséozﬁ :3?'   'ggpplicabia ta the
estabiishment f;;>f. ;t;%:§:   there§sre the
respcmzierst "t;oV_';:¥_a§;§1',_§:§1§'$'<%§n*§ar*;ds made by the

Corporaiéamsg  iéa5i'é:$>;_L:$ £§¥¢}:%'¥E=a_?%a§ ﬁzzeéicesé.

2.vV"-Tigae. :*1e::'-p;o'r.:.i<:3'::e:>;:'jtv«l%:1;és*aa-jir: is Ananiha Pazimanabha Mﬁis,

Kaisheégar, ?s:.§ 'a:f:gfa§e:>:If§2'v_;_ éAi?iaf%~:*{a:"$hEp ﬁrm. it is zméisputed fat': that

.----_ en  fhﬁinsgsmtar aitacézed to the ES! Ccrgzeration in

 'e:%é%c%s:e~.Q§~h}3.%i9Wers under Section 45 9f ﬁne E31 Act impacted

tiie,A.resp$h<§é§§%¥éé€ab§ishment. ﬁaccoréing to 'the inspectcr, at the

g témehﬂ :§f""V.iéné$§§ct%<:n, he found 10 persons wars-zing én the

K x " .:estai3_£%sh ri§ent. The pemsai ef recarcls, accerding far the insgcsecicsr,

.'  §'£V:Vﬁ€5::a'tA'ed that during the month of may 'E990, éhere were 36

"  mérzgaioyees workiﬁg in the estabiésézrnent, ﬁxereafter, she of the

partners 3? the respondenwﬁrm submitﬁed Form Nam on
13.3.3996, wherein he stated is have siwown the number cf

errzpéoyees empioyed in the establishment during May 19% as '$0,

$3

?E;"~:s§"-,



3')

Therefore, the inspecter ganged the arder ctiated '§3.:'3.'%998 issued
%y the Beputy Bérecto: an behaéf 9? the Regionat Siractor of E8?
Coramaticsn is the effect that me respc2ndent--estabEEshm¢z;€ is

covered masses' the provi$%cr*:s of the SS1 Act am . %%za{':«..p_f%2g

respondent is required to submié the perioﬁicaé féfufﬁﬁ.'   _

contributions. There is as dispute thai t§:9eV:1espcs:f;&ér:t-- .$§$z:é'i"V::e=:1<':E.V't%*:e,»V'4 " "

said erdes'. After the receipt ef the sai§$_erc§'e?:.. 3:?! iS.;;1nAr.§§sp§ﬁé{<:£.__:§':iat_*A 'me respendent ﬁéed an a§piica3fc~n__ beféﬁ 'the s.;};1é.é:

Seciion 75 in ESE Appiﬁcation No.?f€ qiueséiiéxnfgufsgfihéfgzoverage =3? the estabiishment unde'r;:_3f?:';= p:s§Qés, &§rs::.%;;::V%VT:he2% Es: A52: The 53% Coypsratéon appeared in th§_$_é'éd.Va§i$§;4§it§aii£snV a29é§ ecérstasiea the said agpéécatiion. Apgﬁcgatéan 4No.7i"E§9? came ii} be dismissed' fair _r°§<>:*:_-:;§>'§:A: §V'sss§'-,'z:'t:.%,:é::e§>'r':« "an 9,'%.2G§é. Thereafter %he authogéties of fi':e; E=Si..'--Cé§fpé$%£itien passed an order unéer Sectien /'ES? A%:ii""'démar2ding the respondent to pay the _ :;:::§:r§;;s.:,sti;s;fa's{snfeggast etc. {rem 28.532990' The $a§d cfdar Lander % Secgééa 4_S¢;%;?i ¢%'the E31 Act was passed 9:": 131.2903. Llpen ser¢Et%e..0:f'{?3é capy of the crder under Sectéon 45-A of the ESE Act, V' "..f_'~iI§e;Lrespéndent ﬂied Esa Appéécation No.'?'!20G3 under Section 75 ' 93' the ES: Act seeking deciaration that the provisions 9? ES} " are not appiicabie ta %ts estabiishment and censequeniéy ta hsﬁd the demands made by the carporatéon as not maéniainabie ané fa? setiéng asiﬁe {she éemands as made by the Carp-sratierzk Téais %/

6. Sri.V,E\§araeimha Hoiie, the Eearned ce:::.mse§ f:iV:§"'.t%1e appeiient-Cerperatien apart from reiterating the g§oLsn.r.ée_'44'a;z§;:}_he'§§~ E35' the appeet memo, further centended that the se§:_o:ﬁd: a»§§;v§.§ea*§§Ee':i"..'T _ ﬂied by the respondenf herein before th'em§ESi' «eogn ﬁme in View of Section 7?(1~A) ef the sieee the«.eeeee§i"., appiicatierz came to be ﬁleci beyendtﬁie» perfed_ .ef--t§$feeV"3fe'ér's 'from 'V the date of cause of eetieni "?'heref§:$ife, t?*2e ESIé"Ces.e;..£;ouEd not have entertained the seco%ie§":e_.p;§EE<:;a¥:;i§§vngnee; f.si,::.<:%1.,V the order under appeai is witheut4'§;.i'rE$e¥iet§eh"aﬁ§ %ié;b§e..§e eet aside. He farther ::<>rz't<=:;.cn«»:3ie«:4i_' the %'_5Vz;iri?rV'e' furnished by the partner 9}' Vcieariy irzdécatee that $0 pereenewere Aeiéépeieyed gwtabiiehment during the month ef May 1990"enei,there§e%e:,' 2&5'-;':)V}"€2i;i:s&ons ef ES§ Act are appéieebie to the efstabijshreentii as "1su€ ¥1, {Fae ESE Court has committed serious . 'erref %é§A§diﬁgé_that tfzve"'éespondentestebiishment is not eoverable Theugh the learned ceunsei iﬂﬁd to centenci that-.'g§*2e seceﬁd esppiication is barred by ihe prénciptes of reeéudieata, mat the e"r1<;§A'i>§hie argument he submitted the: in view of the feet feat "'-V':i':e_»eé§*!%er appiication has not been deeided an merits and eince me' feeding has beer: he-corded on the contentious issue, the principiee '4 ef resjudicata may not get attracted to the present proceeding. E-ﬁe further submitted that cauee 9? action for the respersderst ':6 question the coverage erase on '§3.3,3§98 Le. date of sewice of the /I erder an it, which has been admitted in the petition %%eif, and, therefore, the appiicatéan filed in the year 2083 questioning the sewerage is barred by time. He further centanded the':

Court has not considered the merits of the dert2and$.A"':§<1aciA-get" ~ ES!-Corgoratien on the grcund that_the__esta5§Eéh'é§§::{*%$'_'.not_ ' ' severed under the ESE Act.

?. Cm the other hand, s's»:..§<:%;';%.;.sha5s2n_.¢_,' '§eé":nuué'e:i V'Vé6z§'r:sa% M' appeasing for the respondentV.conteﬁ£§é§§_'ti'§Véit.the piéa' 'ef Vrésjudicata has been rightiy answered4'b§_T_thé' it-Vdaes net caié for interference by thE4s C::2_urt. f1:,::::r€i':.::e'e=«.i:c';::a;.':ta::'a<c%:<«V;9«~.V*:i'that the piea new sought faiééd régafa is %"f§é"':é§ainta§nab§§ity ef ihe petitéen as barréiﬁ. uﬁciér ef the ES§ Act was riot raiaeé ﬁeforethe C633,'v3f%C§.§b"!§*t'£§%$fGf€§, it $3 net open far the agspeéﬁant .__bafr;%fé. C,;:>t.:r's £6 'rva§.$e'this issue fer the first time. He mréber 'c£§é3ien§;ie;c§ cause of action far the Eespenéent to fiie the séﬁéﬁd a ;3';su%é'5<;at:T'€:Vr9:' arese canéy an 13.1.2Gi33 when the order passed undéé $é'é§io.ﬁf45~A of the E81 Act was served upen the respondent K ~.,a'n::3?,-. j1§héfé§cre, 'she appiicafiorz ﬁled in ESE Appiication No,7;'2GO3 . Qzvﬁs' iééry much within the period cf limitation aiioweri in ﬂaw. He " "'furt¥1er csntenéed that the E81 Court has reﬁrcrded a finding ever; on the qzzesticn ms? demands made by the Cafporaiicn, therefore, there is no gmurzd to interfere with the said ﬁnding: Aitemativeiy, the Eeamed ccunsei submitted that if fer any reason this Cam were W , A estak-A~ishn'ient?

to mid that the secend appiication was not mairztaénabie in ﬁséhevg of Seciion '??{_'E -A) of the E$i Act, since there is no ciear ifs the maria of the demands made by the Corparaiicﬁiiirzv under Section 4':~'}-YA <2? the ESE As! and éiher.ﬁe'man%i§V:'ma§e',--7thé¥*; matter iequifes ta be remanded in Dfiie *§€Ji*.

adjudication,

8. En the ﬁght of the éﬁeve ;:'§e iA:A':*a§=,i 'mat agése foi' censidefation in this app§§§"ﬁ§.{§;L'."_"V'p L' A E) Whethej: '*7z'é*:<«.%:VL:§éappEE;;ai§§3§2:.v~fEéedA'§§§i_tha'__;%s§:ondeﬁt befare the ES! Court wisé iirfeitatécn providad under Section: ~?'?{"§' E A' _ 5 véas justified in hoédirsg that the previsiens ui)§1.._V%f%;e appéicabie to the res;>sn<:ie:*':t-

%§i):_\e*£{he:Ai;?'zesj tha matter requiras to be remanéed to the E3? miiat? .

noticed above the primary conterztien at the appeiiaﬁt regard to the mainminabéiity of the appiicaiiera ﬂied $3:

réjspondent befere the E8; Caurt er: the ground %hat the said '4 appﬁcaticrs was barred by Eimitaticrz provided under Sastien ??{§«-A') of the ESi Act. The primary objecticrs raised by the iearned courts:-2-£ fer the respcnéerzt in this regard is that thés piea of W ﬁmitatéan was net raised before the ES% Cmzrtg therefc:re,AVétT §§»;:c»t open for the appeiiant to raise the said piea far tfae fErsi;~«i<%-n5t§»:%'_:5;ssf'£:§§ this Court in this appeaé, 10' Na doubt the a;3pe%§ar:t ¥'1é:.,s 310%.. "£'f:A Eémitation in its obiection ﬁﬁed beéf-:i;'e--..t_;he '€2oL&rt.TV'v F%.g22.%;eY :e§'; '%?: e > said piea being the question of ié«'a#5,:»ir1.VVrny '¢'<::2V$_it§'ere{i§ apinim, shouéd be permiﬁed ta f'e:Vt_!»1§s§ itiésfhe daty of the Court before e2f3'_terfaini'nVg_ ta whether the appiication ﬁEed:_'fGE rg:§3*_e;f sf iimitatiors if any provided, tﬁé Endian Limitation Act, every land appiication made after me pre$$#béd aﬁhaiggh ﬁmitaﬁon has £36?

been :59? tip és a "*'~§'¥':erefore, in VEGW cf the above, aver:

=._'\%*:r'§f§"v2§L"i?.' J iimitaiion haviag mt been set up, the 'C:xé.E:t._bef6r:={"@h§ch the proceedings are initiated is under an oﬁiiﬁiioh "t<$.V--Tfi:_'s<§§T1'cV>VL;t as is whether the appiicatian ﬂied fog" any reiief is w§f?si;{"vthe.'§.:>erEod premsribeé under 3aw. Therefere, E see :20 .j..s£.:bsi_;anc: es En the ccmterztion of the iearr-eed counsei for the

-- fesﬁéﬁdent that the appeiéant cannot be permitted to raise this piea ' "'f£:$: the first time before this Court. From the perusai cf the records cf Ehe ESE Sczurt, it is seen that the Court beiow has not conaiﬁered the questian a$ to whether the appiication was wiihin the period of @ any speciai ori9<:a§ iaw. The E8? Act is 3 sspecias Asi. '§"hsa'£*efe{e the period of éimitation pzcvided under Section 7'?(1~,és};é..of V. Act win have to be treated as the geriod sf Eimitatilon géégﬁizisgdi the Limétaticn Act and Seciiczn 3 of the:L§ﬁ1tia?i9n".4Ac}: §;é §2'g;p§:éca§>EeVL;'~Vé in ether words if an appiicaiion under '['?5{'3'j;{V g:}-E2? Act is ﬂied beyond the peried of tV¥:r§é*.§,; earé'fmm'éatgé-<;!a€é"¢ma;?%aich " L' the cause sf antics': arose, such a3;;:p!%;§f:s§€io:1-»3g§:i}i E;:'a"\;eVtg rejected as barred by Eimitation. V adrmttediy the secend appEicat§c:§ ﬁ¥e;d by ~E¥:'EeI :'§{s3«1:j.=~;:f:>r1'g'.:§e_:f': i: i:**:Vfﬁifﬁggear 2603 for the reiief of ciec.i_2%:r§:'zi44@:;:s::_:§_at~.ﬁxgi:.;%%cv§§:;::$'§$f"Ei?ae ESE Ac: are not app!§cabVE§_§o:§fs by téme as cause :21?

action ft-qr thé A:;Ve1;é--;*;s';~,.g<;%§e=;r2pi:"%;§é:"$e_&i< such reiéef amuse on $331996 Etseii Tife aéi considered this aspact of the mafia; ::§'::;§ug§*:.VEt'-sags' tjndér ﬁn ebiigaticn to verify as is whether %he ,.4,g£.9;a;:§£%Es:'éti£:§1Lz§xa.f'éa5é_.barre§§§mi§§,? £3212: ef Eimétatierz or net. Therefere, E am ac?' Vthuéihﬁé the ES? Ccurt was not justified in answering issugfs fin §avr:>ur cf the respondent as the peéiﬁon fﬁed V'-..bef9re"§€,V__f{;r that reiief was barraa by iimétaiion pmvideé urzder ":7 mg} of the ESE Act. m this View 61' the mattea :

aéaswer Point $305.? and 2 in the afﬁgmative.

$2' in view (if the ahave finding, it §$ not open to the respcrédent to contend that the provisicns cf Esi Act are me: appiécabie to its estabéishment, @

13. As neticed eaﬁier in the second appﬁcatian ﬁéed befere the ES% Court the respondent has questiomed the correctngs 0?

the ciesnarzztis made in different netices and aisc in the o?de::".g§§aé$'e¢ under Sactéon #5-A of the ES? Act' As couié be ~ order of the E83 Court, me Court has mt gpne §nt;:"f§z%e--§}'%%fit§ §>?f.Vt%3eﬁ " "

ssaid appiisafion as the ES? Com has a§'2.§vJe;:'é1d:i'thié'.E§si: é' =5e§$:<_:E:§rag;_ the appiécabﬁity of the p%rcvis%c;f:s4.___ef t§ie_ 'Act' a;;._zfa'V'£'r%V;:~::4_§:¥*zeES'% Corporation. in that View af the ma'fifef1, th;e§ E$"E'€t§i£r%':ha$gnot gone into the correctnmas of the vby._i;h§"C§:per:§§:ééAn, in para- is cf the mder, the that as the estabiishment Es"r§¢é:¢';>ve§€e:d :;r'réé:'"th:éV ;§§ct,_thé questica of paying either c.§:ntrib_%3iia5u o_;T'3§:f§ter;§'st'_'VV;ic>_ rt_--r3VtWa:°Ese. in that véew of the matter, thaw' ESE CQ§.i:i.%jV'i*:#S'~..%,§:ét. aside the éemarzds made by the Corpgratian. 'i~§§Vwevér,Ai'r: §%%'éw of my finding that me petition ﬂied V' by ':§§§'re.sg3or2cjeni §%>f'Ta'£¢c§aration that the proviséans sf ES§ Act are _nt:§ Etg estabiishmeni was barred by iirnitaticn ursde:

seats" ?";?(*§'"~A_)..?:of the ESE Act 3:36 that the ﬁnding at the 53: com: in ihés. fegafd is no': tags? and since the ES? Cour: has not A {_'~:{;>r'is§«::i;ereé the correctness of the demands made in the notices as ' *'é{ei»!' as in the order passed untiez Seciicm 45%. of the E$£ Act, the " Wrﬁaiter requires to be remanded to 33% ES§ Gear': far consideratéon of the correctness of demands made by the Corporaticn. The raspondent shouid be given ogpertunity :6 Seed evidence with w' fegard to the éemands made hy the Coypsratéen. we respendent shouici afsc be giver: ara oggerturzﬁy ta question the cozre«?i'§:':':-§7Sf3[:Ez§. the csrﬁer pasaeﬁ under Section 454% of the ES? ﬁzﬁt} "

Eiméted purpase it is necessary is remamd».i:i';e ' Cam. ﬁsacordingiyg mint NQUS is answé:éedL~. _ "

14. in View af the amaa; ié"4uaT§'%c::mV.és:- ~¢'ﬁ!rEi ééder dateﬁ 4.9.2504 passed 'the Pféééﬁisﬁ. "i&[aVE3"oL%r c:zm ES! Ccurt, $ﬁanga£o:'e, in ESS A;$:';$iis§:.'a;t%§SL§: set aside"

§t is ordereé t:if.:.a£* ;tffe~=.a ﬁéed by ihe respondent §1'e§'réf'}_nVéeeéégéaég~:_§i.s,§§:'%~afa'é§a'é€_:that the provisions ef 58% Act are ab?' is barred $31 éimitatian provided {mdér Secﬁdzxf~T??"'{1}ﬁ;}:'.9? the ES} Act as sash it is; dismissecf to that «e;§<iar;t;. A'e7§§é'~z§;éa£ter £3 remanded to the ESE Csurt "§<:a_:' §re$£§€~c<,::3si:E_eratioVEé W--i'l--E'§ «regard to the validity and correctrzesa {sf by the Carporatiorz as we-3§ as the cgder passed 1;r1vi1's:.>:.";€';e ectiV:5r:.V-%§§¥}*TiV<>f the E534 Act. $6 feturn the records; to ES? Court aieng with a cspy cxf V' V' "..t}hiéf*%1dgmVeNnt.

Sd/Q. Judga :;1v*

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

The Employees State Insurance ... vs M/S Ananthapadmanabha Mills on 25 September, 2008