Karnataka High Court
Ncore Technology Pvt Ltd vs The Deputy Regional Director Esi ... on 6 February, 2010
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6"' DAY OF FEBRQRY 2Q1Q
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATE'T1'.l\4l:/HR:/1*(T\:',:£\INAA _:"
M.F.A. NO. 3759 ("E,S.i')_' T
BETWEEN: ' ' " .
NCORE TECHNOLOGY PVTVLTD
LEO COMPLEX,.~4TH FI_OO.R"-- I
44 AND 45, RES_I'DEN{CY,CROSS 'ROAD
BANGALORE - 56O_F_'O25"...1'' *
APPELLANT
(BY SR1-_N-.R C§:'RAVI,.:ADV.)"_-.._ I A
AND: 3. ; 1% ' '~
TH E .,DEiPEITY 'REG1'ON.A'LTT"DIRECTOR
..ESI.CO.RPORAT'IDN. '
' _ RESPONDENT
(BY, SR1 M P'*G'EE'T--HA DEVI, ADV) *>k>#< :*THIS"««NFA FILED U/S 82(2) OF THE ESI ACT, 1948 =AGA,1N--s_T .,"I*H_E"--..ORDER DATED 11/05/2001 PASSED IN ESI "._A-P_PLI"CA'T.IO'N'*'NO.48/97 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. I1NDuSTR'IA;LT" TRIBUNAL E E1 COURT, BANGALORE, DISMIT-SSING THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 75 OF THE ESI 7, ACT;ETC, THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING '.THIS DAY, |VIAN3Ui\|ATH.J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOwING:--
t~.xv*§ contribution due to the corporation. They also produced relevant documents before the respondent to'cTs»how compliance. However, by that time the responde-n,tx».h_ere:i'n.A had already passed an order under Section_4.5'§_A.Vof»A.l.t'hle E1SIl_ Act on 19--O8~1997, which was chiailengyecl before the Addl. Industrial Tribu4_nal andESI Ci';-}t'J'l"Vi.'..:: The s'aid"g court after framing issues recorcliiigp evi'd.e_uncVe upheld the order passed by the Vresjpon-flenytylrierein.andyuconsequently dismissed the application.f.i_ie.ditsby::Lth'e~Japlppell-Viant herein. The appellant is before this court challer-i.gi'n--g:'}the"sainievi' ._ it 9' it is appellant that it has paid the entire'con'tri..butioVnv._du,e'a~nd payable by it in respect of its «--._yerrvi'p'l'oyp_ees,i_ whoV"'ar-ecoverable under the Act and in respect Lof:"w'horri:'th'e.:a"ppellant is liable to pay contribution for the period fro'rV:iii._fjctober 1995 till March 1997. However, before paym'e_nt:. of contribution due for the period October 1995 to 1997 while the matter was still pending before the respondent, the respondent herein has proceeded to calculate the contribution payable on the basis of assumed Mi wages of all the employees of the company including those of whom who are not coverable under the Act. Therei'o.re, the said order of respondent will have to be reic-o.nsi_di'ejred..y and the contribution payable by the appellantlnto _ reassessed by the respondent, c:Aonf:i.n4injg".its'_'d.e'rnan'dx.V.A_§ri' respect of those who are coyerabie "Linden-lri.he 'Act "for"g payment of contributions at thVe'~w._releVvan't~poiinjt time as stated by the appellantJinf-Annexiiire:s:_'V..C;«D and produced along with this appeal doc-d'ments are Form No.6, W|"lei'e.i4_|f]§._.:VC}4I']":A1Qtt'1j¢_" forms the names of the pversonsy company at the reievant period '.of are required to be paid to respondent by the appellant herein. It is further 'case'1of the appellant that, when the order of iAtii~e,Vl"res.ponVdent was challenges before the E31 Court. The filed the aforesaid documents along with the"'app'i:ica~t'ion and sought for setting aside the said order. ' ,:"ft:e4ESVI"tZourt has neither considered its pleading nor looked "into":the documents and appreciated the same. The ES:
Court has mechanicaliy passed an order dismissing the application.
5. Therefore, this appeal is filed by the herein seeking decision of this Court on substantial question of law, which is°as7u_nA'deri'- _ "Whether the orderiviéipassed C Hon'b|e E.I vfjozurt isi'i'egai?""'-»i._
6. This Court substantiai question of ia_w_in }the n,e'ga€t_i{/Ce for'»._the"i'oiiowing reasons.
""" "pro-c'eed"i'ngt" the appeiiant and respondent are triai Court record, which is sec_ured--°is 'gone and on appreciation of the e_viden"ce--.--a--nd documents on record, which cleariy fact that the appeliant has paid the entire arrears of"Vc"o_ritribution due to the respondent -- Corporation 'gfor th'eV""re|evant period. It is aiso seen that in the A "t°proCc'e«eding before the E81 Court, the appeliant herein has produced the returns filed by it under form No.6 and aiso the chaiians evidencing payment of contribution. In fact the vi (1 returns filed in Form No.6, produced for the period from 29- 074997 to 12»~o7-1997;29-o7-1997 to 12--o7--1997a'riigi'»o29- 07-1997 discloses the number of employees;""ancl..._'__;theii~. names who were employed by the appellah_t..at_th_e'rrelevant.. point of time in respect of whom it:.i.sLila-ble._'t-o"pa.3rmVtphé contribution. The said documents are"aVls'o marvri{'eVd,l:as E3;.A7,'fl 8 and 9 before the ESI 3esid'e's'p_VVt_hve return the vouchers are also produced' ;;_t'h§:...a~E$I5--,gl!_>ant toulshow that whatever the sum req:i.iri.re.d::r.tov--.Vhe per calculation shown in fo_rr?i Though the said documents1ar§5.riig_aVil.a'b'l»e:roVlr of the ESI Court, it has not tiie_'l'sa_ri1e_'aVhd has not verified whether the demland :the:eV"'respondent -- Corporation based on aislslumed justifiable, in the light of aforesaid .dtscur*nents,V--._ 8_._ ."V'k:'E'\V"EEi:der these circumstances, this court find that it '*.,is just _ar'::d proper to set aside the order dated 11.05.2001 "'lr'_Apva_ss'ed by the ESI Court and remand the matter back to the respondent to consider the case of the appellant in the light of the documents referred in this appeal and to assess the Mi.
contribution payable by appellant in respect of covered employees as on relevant date and if it is found thatvtliere is deficit in payment of contribution to make against the appellant based on the actual..wa_g"eVs':--pai_d to those of the employees who are co3«i{era-blefiviiéndher"
the relevant point of time. The resp'e.nCient Shapilicompletei', the same within three months Hfroni_thetda.t:e"of receipt of the copy of this order.' ~-.._}$i":co'rdingll.y;.__'t.he,appeal is allowed without any order..as to vcos.tsf.V. 'V 0 0 It is 'i:hlatx_ appellant herein need not have toWaiitiiiforllixffresh._:notice"~from the respondent the competént' Deputy Director of ESI Corporation}-.Ba'nga'E_0r'e_.s The appellant is directed to appear the ».aforesa'i-d-~-«competent authority on 01-03-2010. i."th:e"--vauthority shall dispose of the case after af'f'o,__r'ding_ oppoiirtunity to appellant herein in accordance with \.law.
Sd/1 ludge VK