Delhi District Court
Jaggi Enterprises Pvt Ltd vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 24 February, 2024
M/S JAGGI ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED
vs
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
IN THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV MEHTA:
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMRENT CONTROLLER
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI
ESIC No.1/20
DLND030005632020
M/S JAGGI ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED
Through its Director/Authorized Representative
Registered Add: A7, Rowari Line, Phase2,
Industrial Area, District West Delhi,
Versus
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
Through its Regional Director/ Branch Manager
DDA Shopping Center, 1st Floor, Mayapuri,
Phase1, New Delhi 110064
Also At:
ESIC Regional Office, Delhi, 3rd & 4th Floor,
Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110064
ESIC No.1/20 Page 1 of 14
.
M/S JAGGI ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED
vs
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
Date of institution : 11.08.2020
Date for reserving for judgment : 30.01.2024
Date of judgment : 24.02.2024
Final judgment : Petition Allowed.
Petition under section 75 of Employees State Insurance Act 1948
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by M/S Jaggi Enerprises Private Limited through its duly constituted attorney. It is stated in the petition that the respondent is a body corporate created under the ESIC Act to provide certain benefits to the employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury/death. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner company is duly covered under the provisions of the Employees Sate Insutrance Act, 1948 and has been alloted code no. 11001265440000999 by the respondent. It is averred in the petition that Late Smt. Sinha Sunita @ Sunita Sinha was an employee of the petitioner company and was working at the post of 'Helper' since 01.06.2019 till the date of her accident i.e. 02.07.2019. It is averred that the deceased/employee contribution was deducted and deposited alongwith the employer contribution with the ESIC/respondent. It is submitted in the petition that on 02.07.2019, Ms. Sunita, during the course of employment was working in the peitioner's company and while she was taking the ESIC No.1/20 Page 2 of 14 .
M/S JAGGI ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION medicine carton from one table to put the same on another table, her leg slipped as a result of which she fell down from the first floor and was seriously injured and immediately taken to the hospital and thereafter due to serious head injury she died on 15.07.2019. The petitioner has submitted that they reported the said incident to the respondent, however, the respondent issued a show cause notice NoD/B.O./M.P./Accident/201819 dated 05.08.2019 to the petitioner which was duly replied by the petitioner's company vide reply dated 04.12.2019. The petitioner has submitted that vide letter dated 31.01.2020 respondent rejected the accident claim of the deceased on the grounds "The employee was registered after the accident". It is further averred in the petition that the petitioner through various correspondence from time to time requested the respondent to give benefit to the poor family members of the deceased and that the late registration under the Act is not a legal ground to deprive the benefits to the dependents of the deceased under the provisions of the act, but the respondent did not approve the accident claim. Hence, the present petition was filed by the petitioner to quash the letter no. D/BO/MP/Benefit/Accident/1115555311/2019 dated 31.01.2020 vide which the accident claim for benefit was rejected by the respondent and has also prayed that the respondent be directed to release/pay the death benefit(s) to the dependents of the deceased employee Late Smt. Sinha Sunita @ Sunita Sinha as per the Act.
2. Notice of petition was served on the respondent and they put an appearance.
ESIC No.1/20 Page 3 of 14.
M/S JAGGI ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
3. Written statement was filed by the respondent denying the contentions made by the petitioner. Respondent took the objection that petitioner has not come before this court with clean hands and has suppressed true and correct facts and that the petitioner has made false declaration before the court. It is also submitted by the respondent in the WS that petitioner had filed the accident report on 24.07.2020 while the accident took place on 02.07.2020, i.e. after 20 days which violates the regulation 68 of ESI Corporation General Regulation, 1950, as a fatal accident report should be submitted immediately. Furthermore the respondent in the WS has submitted that the claim of the petitioner was rejected as the registration of the employee Smt. Sunita was done after the accident and 35 days after her appointment. So the respondent has averred that the petition of the petitioner be dismissed with costs.
4. Thereafter, the counsel for the petitioner chose not to file any replication to the WS and the matter was listed for PE.
5. Petitioner examined Sh. Sanjeev Jaggi as PW1 who tendered evidence PE by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Documents Exhibits 1 Copy of Board Resolution ExPW1/1.
2 Computer Generated Copy of Form C11 Ex.PW1/2.
ESIC No.1/20 Page 4 of 14.
M/S JAGGI ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION 3 Copy of payment register Ex.PW1/3 (colly. Pages 1 to 11) (OSR).
4 Computer Generated copy of Epehchan Patr Ex.PW1/4.
5 Copy of Form No.12 ExPW1/5 (OSR).6 Copy of letter dated 05.08.2019 ExPW1/6 (OSR). 7 Copy of Letter dated 04.12.2019 ExPW1/7 (OSR). 8 Copy of Rejection letter ExPW1/8 (OSR).
9 Copy of various communications between the ExPW1/9 (colly.) petitioner and respondent no.1.
6. PW1 Sh. Sanjeev Jaggi was duly crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel and PE was closed on 04.11.2022. Thereafter, matter was listed for RE, however, respondent chose not to lead RE and RE was closed 26.04.2023 and the matter was listed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
7. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that ESIC Act is a benevolent piece of legislation and a liberal construction should be accorded to it. Furthermore, it is argued by the petitioner that payment/ non payment of contribution is inconsequential and the respondent is bound by law to release the death benefitS to the dependents of the deceased employee as per rules. The petitioner has relied upon certain judgments:
ESIC No.1/20 Page 5 of 14.
M/S JAGGI ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION i. ESI Corporation vs Radhika Theatre, Civil appeal NO. 312 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 12520 of 2022) decided on January 20, 2023 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:
ii. Bharagath Engineering vs R. Ranganayaki And Another Civil Appeal No. 8623 of 2002 decided on December 20, 2002 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
8. The respondent has argued that the claim of the petitioner was rejected as the registration of the deceased employee took place after accident and 35 days after appointment and so the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The respondent also relied on certain judgments to support his case : i. Sushil Goyal vs Luckson Siddique & Ors. FAO No. 244/2010 dated 27th January, 2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
ii. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. Vs Regional Director, ESIC & Ors. Civil appeal Nos. 917918 of 2004 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
ESIC No.1/20 Page 6 of 14.
M/S JAGGI ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION LEGAL PROVISIONS:
9. The following provisons are relevant in the present matter as under: Section 2 (8) of ESIC Act defines as under: "Employment injury" means a personal injury to an employee caused by accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment, being an insurable employment, whether the accident occurs or the occupational disease is contracted within or outside the territorial limits of India ;
Section 2 (9) of ESIC Act defines as under : "Employee" means any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment to which this Act applies and
(i) who is directly employed by the principal employer, on any work of, or incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work of, the factory or establishment, whether such work is done by the employee in the factory or establishment or elsewhere; or
(ii)who is employed by or through an immediate employer, on the premises of the factory or establishment or under the supervision of the principal employer or his agent on work which is ordinarily part of the work of the factory or establishment or which is preliminary to the work carried on in or incidental to the purpose of the factory or establishment; or ESIC No.1/20 Page 7 of 14 .
M/S JAGGI ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
(iii)whose services are temporarily lent or let on hire to the principal employer by the person with whom the person whose services are so lent or let on hire has entered into a contract of service;and includes any person employed for wages on any work connected with the administration of the factory or establishment or any part, department or branch thereof or with the purchase of raw materials for, or the distribution or sale of the products of, the factory or establishment or any person engaged as apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961), and includes such person engaged as apprentice whose training period is extended to any length of time....
Section 2 (14) defines insured person as under: (14) "insured person" means a person who is or was an employee in respect of whom contributions are or were payable under this Act and who is by reason thereof, entitled to any of the benefits provided by this Act;
Section 2 (23) defines "wage period" as under : "Wage period" in relation to an employee means the period in respect of which wages are ordinarily payable to him whether in terms of the contract of employment, express or implied or otherwise;
Section 26 stated that: (1) All contributions paid under this Act and all other moneys received on behalf of the Corporation shall be paid into a fund called ESIC No.1/20 Page 8 of 14 .
M/S JAGGI ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION the Employees' State Insurance Fund which shall be held and administered by the Corporation for the purposes of this Act.
(2) The Corporation may accept grants, donations and gifts from the Central or any State Government, local authority, or any individual or body whether incorporated or not, for all or any of the purposes of this Act.
(3) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act and to any rules or regulations made in this behalf, all moneys accruing or payable to the said Fund shall be paid into the Reserve Bank of India or such other bank as may be approved by the Central Government to the credit of an account styled the account of the Employees' State Insurance Fund.
(4) Such account shall be operated on by such officers as may be authorised by the Standing Committee with the approval of the Corporation.
Section 38 of ESIC Act states that subject to the provisions of this Act, all employees in factories or establishments to which this Act applies shall be insured in the manner provided by this Act.
Section 75 (1) (g) in The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 states that: any other matter which is in dispute between a principal employer and the Corporation, or between a principal employer and an immediate employer or between a person and the Corporation or between an employee and a principal or immediate employer, in respect of any contribution or benefit or other dues ESIC No.1/20 Page 9 of 14 .
M/S JAGGI ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION payable or recoverable under this Act, or any other matter required to be or which may be decided by the Employees' Insurance Court under this Act.
10. I have heard the contentions of both the parties and have gone through the record.
COURT OBSERVATIONS:
11. After going through the material on record including the testimony of witnesses, this court makes the following observations:
(a) The petitioner's case is that their establishment is covered under the ESIC Act and has been paying contributions for its employees and had also paid contribution of late Ms. Sunita Sinha who was working since 1st June 2019 at the post of helper in the petitioner's company. The petitioner's case is that the deceased / employee's constribution was deducted and deposited alongwith the petitioner/ employer contribution and has relied upon payment register and e pehchan card whic is the ESIC record of Late Smt. Sunita and has therefore submitted that the accident claim/ death benefits of the deceased be released to her dependents as per ESIC Act and seek quashing of the letter no. D/BO/MP/Benefit/Accident/1115555311/2019 dated 31.01.2020 vide which the accident claim for benefit was rejected by the respondent.
ESIC No.1/20 Page 10 of 14.
M/S JAGGI ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
(b) The petitioner in order to prove its case has relied upon various judgments and the provisions of the ESIC Act and has averred that the ESIC Act is a beneficial piece of legislation meant for benefit of employees working for the establishments/ factories etc. which are covered under the ESIC Act as stated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in ESI Corp Vs. Harrison Malayalam Ltd. (1998) 9 SCC 74 and Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. Vs Regional Director ESIC (2014) 9 SCC 657 and so Liberal Interpration should be given to the provisons of the act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharagath Engg vs R Ranganayki & Anr. (2003) 2 SCC 138 has observed that the payment or non payment of contributiion and action or non action prior to or subsequent to the date of accident is really inconsequential.
(c) The respondent has in their written statement not denied that the deceased was not the employee of the petitioner. In their written statement the main defence of respondent is that the petitioner had filed the accident report on 24.07.2020 while the accident took place on 02.07.2020 i.e. after 20 days which violates the regulation 68 of ESI Corporation General Regulation, 1950 as a fatal accident report should be submitted immediately. Furthermore the respondent in the written statement has submitted that the claim of the petitioner was rejected as the registration of the employee Smt. Sunita was done after the accident and 35 days after her appointment.
ESIC No.1/20 Page 11 of 14.
M/S JAGGI ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
(d) The petitioner has during arguments admitted the late registration of the deceased employee Smt. Sunita and has stated that he was not able to register the employee Smt. Sunita and other employees in time due to lack of knowledge and the delay was not intentional. Smt. Sunita Sinha was appointed on 01.06.2019 and registered on 05.07.2019 i.e. after the accident.
The delay in filing the accident report has been explained by the petitioner in their reply to the show cause notice of the respondent Ex. PW1/7 wherein it is stated that the accident report could not submitted as they were busy in treatement of the deceased Smt. Sunita and also this being the first case of the accident in the office premises of the petitioner, they did not have the knowledge regarding early filing of the accident report.
(e) After going through the provisions of ESIC Act and various judgments placed on record by the petitioner, it is clear that the ESIC Act is a beneficial piece of legislation for the benefit of the employees and should be liberally construed.
(f) The mere fact that there is delay in registration of the employee would not disentitle the employee or his family members from receiving their claim in case of any accidental injury incurred in course of employment. The employer is duty bound to register the employees and any delay / default on part of the employer would not adversely impact the rights of the employee under the ESIC Act.
ESIC No.1/20 Page 12 of 14.
M/S JAGGI ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
(g) There is not even a single provision in the ESIC Act which lays down any adverse consequence to the employee for delay in his registration by the employer. Also the employee should not suffer due to default on part of the employer in paying the contributions in registration of the employee.
(h) The judgment relied upon by the respondent that is: Sushil Goyal vs Luckson Siddique & Ors. FAO No. 244/2010 dated 27th January, 2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case the court held that the employee as alleged by the establishment was not an employee on the date of the accident and so was not covered under the ESIC Act.
In the present case the respondent has nowhere in their written statement stated that the deceased was not an employee of the petitioner. Even while rejecting the claim of the petitioner the only ground stated by the respondent was that the employee was registered after the accident and so the respondent cannot take the benefit of the abovesaid ruling in the present case.
12. Therefore, this court in view of the judgment in Bharagath Engg vs R Ranganayki & Anr. (2003) 2 SCC 138 holds that delay in payment of contribution by the employer is inconsequential and the employee should not suffer due to default on the part of the employer in paying the contributions as the ESIC ESIC No.1/20 Page 13 of 14 .
M/S JAGGI ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Act has to be given liberal interpretation considering it is a beneficial piece of legislation.
13. In light of abovesaid findings, the petition is allowed and the letter no.
D/BO/MP/Benefit/Accident/1115555311/2019 dated 31.01.2020 vide which the accident claim for benefit was rejected by the respondent is set aside and quashed. The respondent is directed to release the death benefits to the LRs / dependents of the deceased employee Sunita Sinha as per rules. No order as to cost.
14. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV MEHTA
MEHTA Date: 2024.03.04
04:58:04 +0530
Announced in the open court (VAIBHAV MEHTA)
on 24.02.2024 Sr. Civil Judgecum Rent Controller
PHC, New Delhi
ESIC No.1/20 Page 14 of 14
.