Madras High Court
Hastham Shoes vs The Regional Director on 30 March, 2021
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
C.M.A.No.3678 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30-03-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.3678 of 2011
And
M.P.No.1 of 2011
Hastham Shoes,
Represented by Legal Representative
Thiru D.Muralikrishnan,
No.1, Madipakkam Main Road,
Madipakkam,
Chennai-600 091. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The Regional Director,
ESI Corporation,
143, Sterling Road,
Chennai-600 034.
2.The Authorised Officer,
ESI Corporation,
143, Sterling Road,
Chennai-600 034.
3.The Recovery Officer,
143, Sterling Road,
Chennai-600 034. .. Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3678 of 2011
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 82 of the
Employees' State Insurance Act, against the order and decree dated
21.07.2011 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Labour Court,
Chennai in EIOP No.242 of 2005.
For Appellant : Mr.Anand Gopalan for
M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For Respondents : Mr.G.Bharadwaj
JUDGMENT
The order and decree dated 21.07.2011 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Labour Court, Chennai in EIOP No.242 of 2005, is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The substantial questions of law as raised by the appellant, are as follows:-
“(a) Is the order of the Employees State Insurance Corporation dated 07.05.2004 passed on “ad hoc basic” is valid in law?
(b) Has the Employees State Insurance Court excercised its jurisdiction 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3678 of 2011 to modify the order dated 07.05.2004 on the basis of evidence placed before it, especially Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-6 series.”
3. The substantial questions of law raised are relatable to the facts and circumstances, which were already adjudicated by the Competent Authority under Section 45-A of the Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as “ESI Act” in short) as well as by the Employees State Insurance Court (hereinafter referred to as “ESI Court” in short) under Section 75 of the ESI Act.
4. The appellant has not raised any acceptable substantial questions of law by warranting further adjudication of the issues. However, the appellant contended that the factory was closed with effect from 01.03.2002. But an ad hoc contribution was directed to be paid by the ESI Authorities till the year 2004, more specifically, the date on which the appellant communicated the closure of the factory to the ESI Department. The appellant had not produced any document to establish that the factory was closed with effect from 01.03.2002. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3678 of 2011
5. It is pertinent to note that Section 45-A of the ESI Act, adjudicated enquiry was done by the Competent Authority and the order reveals that an opportunity was afforded to represent the case in person on 31.07.2003, but the employer has not replied to the said show cause notice and had no opportunity to represent his case in person.
6. When the appellant has not participated in the enquiry conducted under Section 45-A of the ESI Act and thereafter, approached the ESI Court under Section 75 of the ESI Act and even before the ESI Court, the appellant had not produced any document to show that the factory was closed on 01.03.2002. Thus,, there is no reason to interfere with the findings made by the ESI Court regarding the payment of ad hoc contribution. The Competent Authority directed the appellant to pay the ad hoc contribution and the ESI Court also confirmed the same and it is relevant to extract the findings of the ESI Court, more specifically, in paragraph-13, which reads as under:-
“13. Mfnt. nkw;Twpa
fhuz';fspd; Kd;dpiyf;Fk;
N:H;epiyfspd; Kd;dpiyf;Fk;.
4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3678 of 2011 v/k.rh/1 rhl;rpaj;jpd; thapyhft[k;.
v/k.rh/M/1 Kjy; v/k/rh/M/7d;
thapyhft[k;. kDjhuu; epWtdk;
khu;r; 2002 Kjy; K:lg;gltpy;iy
vd;Wk;. mjdhy; 3-02 Kjy; 9-02
tiuapyhd fhyj;jpw;fhd g';fspg;g[ bjhif kDjhuu; brYj;j flikg;gl;ltuhthu; vd;nw fUj ntz;oa[s;sJ/ nkw;Twpa fhuz';fspd; Kd;dpiyf;Fk;.
N:H;epiyfspd; Kd;dpiyf;Fk;.
v/k.rh/1 rhl;rpaj;jpd; thapyhft[k;.
v/k/rh/M/1 Kjy; v/k/rh/M/7d;
thapyhft[k;. 5/7/04 njjpapl;l gpupt[ 45V cj;jut[ bry;yj;jf;fJ vd;Wk;.
epahakhdJ vd;Wk;. mjpy;
,e;ePjpkd;wk; jiyaPL bra;J
ePf;fwt[ bra;a nghJkhd
Kfhe;juk; ,y;iy vd;nw fUj
ntz;oa[s;sJ/ vdnt. kDjhuu;
epWtdk; 5/7/04 njjpapl;l gpupt[
45V cj;jutpy; fz;Ls;sthW 3-02
Kjy; 9-02 tiuapyhd
fhyj;jpw;fhd g';fspg;g[ bjhif
brYj;j flikg;gl;ltuhthu; vd;nw
fUJfpnwd;/ vdnt. 5/7/04
5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3678 of 2011 njjpapl;l gpupt[ 45V cj;jut[. mjd;
tpisthf 10/8/05 njjpapl;l rp?19
nfhupf;if. 6/9/05 njjpapl;l
nfhupf;if mwptpg;g[ kw;Wk; 4/10/05
njjpapl;l gw;Wif cj;jut[
Mfpaitfs; epahakhdJ vd;Wk;.
bry;yj;jf;fJ vd;Wk;. mitfs;
vt;tifapYk; ePf;fwt[
bra;aj;jf;fjy;y vd;Wk; Kot[
bra;J. kDjhuUf;F ve;jtpjkhd
gupfhu';fSk; fpilf;ff;Toajy;y
vd;W jPu;khdpj;J. 5/7/04 njjpapl;l
gpupt[ 45V cj;jut[. mjd;
tpisthf 10/8/05 njjpapl;l rp?19
nfhupf;if. 6/9/05 njjpapl;l
nfhupf;if mwptpg;g[ kw;Wk; 4/10/05
njjpapl;l gw;Wif cj;jut[
Mfpaitfs; ePf;fwt[ bra;ag;gl
ntz;Lbkd;W kDjhuu; nfhupa[s;s
nfhupf;if Vw;fj;jf;fjy;y vd;W
Kot[ bra;J. mjd;ghy;
kDjhuUf;F ve;jtpjkhd
gupfhu';fSk; fpilf;fj;jf;fjy;y
vd;W jPu;khdpj;J. mt;thnw
,t;tHf;bfGtpdhf;fSf;F jf;fthW jPu;t[ fhzg;gLfpwJ/@ 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3678 of 2011
7. In view of the fact that the appellant communicated the closure of the factory to ESI Court in the year 2004 and even before the ESI Court, the appellant had not produced any document to establish that the said factory was closed in the year 2002, this Court has no hesitation to interfere with the findings of the ESI Court. It is made clear that the payment already made towards contribution, if any, is to be adjusted while calculating the contribution to be paid.
8. Accordingly, the order and decree dated 21.07.2011 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Labour Court, Chennai in EIOP No.242 of 2005 stands confirmed and consequently, CMA No.3678 of 2011 is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs and the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
30-03-2021 Index : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No. Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Svn 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3678 of 2011 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn To
1.The Principal Judge, Labour Court, Chennai.
2.The Regional Director, ESI Corporation, 143, Sterling Road, Chennai-600 034.
3.The Authorised Officer, ESI Corporation, 143, Sterling Road, Chennai-600 034.
4.The Recovery Officer, 143, Sterling Road, Chennai-600 034.
CMA No.3678 of 2011
30-03-2021 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/