Madras High Court
M/S.Bhavanji Mills vs The Presiding Officer on 18 February, 2021
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
W.P.(MD)No.6044 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.(MD)No.6044 of 2012
M/s.Bhavanji Mills,
41/1, Srivilliputhur Road,
Rajapalayam,
Rep. by its Partner B.Harish Patel,
Office at 51, Madathupatti Road,
Rajapalayam. ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, District Court Complex,
Mellur Road, Madurai.
2. The Deputy Director,
ESI Corporation, Sub Regional Office,
(1B, Old Post Office Road, Tallakulam)
Now-4th Main Road, K.K.Nagar,
Madurai – 625 020. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 2nd
respondent culminating in order dated 23.10.1997 in No.51-28582-II-
SRO/MDU/125/97 and confirmed by the order dated 21.07.2011 passed by the
1st respondent in E.S.I.O.P.No.19/1997 and quash both the orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ravichandran
For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilipkumar,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Standing Counsel for R2
1/6
W.P.(MD)No.6044 of 2012
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 23.10.1997 in No.51-28582-II-SRO/MDU/125/97, which was confirmed by the 1st respondent in E.S.I.O.P.No.19/1997, vide order dated 21.07.2011 and quash both the orders.
2. The petitioner is a partnership firm and it is covered under ESI Act. The petitioner has been remitting the contribution regularly as per the Act. Whileso, the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 04.07.1997, making certain allegations and calling upon the petitioner to attend the personal hearing, for which, the petitioner sent its explanation contending that they had engaged apprentices trainees and paid stipend to the apprentices and hence, the contribution need not be paid for the apprentices; further apprentices are not workmen and overtime payment paid to the uncovered persons will not attract the contribution. However, the second respondent, without applying its mind, passed the order dated 23.10.1997, directing the petitioner to pay the amount for the period from 1993-1994 to 1994-1995. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a petition before the Labour Court, Madurai, in ESIOP No.19 of 1997 and that petition was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/6 W.P.(MD)No.6044 of 2012 dismissed by the Labour Court, Madurai, on the ground that the petitioner's documents, namely, Exs.P4 and P5 are not sufficient to hold that the persons engaged by the petitioner are apprentices and they are not employees. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner though fairly conceded that the apprentices were not appointed under the Apprentice Act, however, submitted that the appointment of apprentices was not disputed, which was proved before the original authority, but, the appellate authority, without considering the said aspect, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner Mill. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the writ petition.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent has given several opportunities to the petitioner to produce the documents. However, the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence. Though the petitioner has taken a stand that apart from the regular employees and staff, the petitioner Mill also engaged some persons for training on payment of 'stipend' based on the certified standing order, but, no standing order was produced to permit the petitioner to engage apprentices. Apart from that, the names of the trainees were also not produced either before the Enquiry Officer or before the Labour https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/6 W.P.(MD)No.6044 of 2012 Court for consideration. Further, the order passed by the first respondent is also very specific that the apprentices are employees as per Section 2(9) of the ESI Act, since they were not appointed under the Apprentice Act and therefore, there was a direction to the petitioner to pay the contribution.
5. This Court paid its careful attention to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. The petitioner filed Exs.P4-voucher copies and P5-stipend particulars copy before the Labour Court. However, the Labour Court held that the documents were not sufficient to hold that the persons engaged by the petitioner were apprentices. Though the petitioner had submitted the above particulars, however, the appointment of the said apprentices have not been substantiated before the Labour Court by filing necessary materials, viz., the orders appointing them as apprentices, as is required under the Apprentice Act. Such being the case, in the absence of any credible material to show that the said persons, for whom contribution has been sought for are apprentices, the finding rendered by the Labour Court negating the stand of the petitioner does not require any interference, as the same is well founded and based on just and proper reasoning. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that no https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/6 W.P.(MD)No.6044 of 2012 interference is warranted with the order passed by the authorities.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is devoid of merits and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
18.02.2021 ogy Index : Yes/No. Internet: Yes/No. To
1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, District Court Complex, Mellur Road, Madurai.
2. The Deputy Director, ESI Corporation, Sub Regional Office, (1B, Old Post Office Road, Tallakulam) Now-4th Main Road, K.K.Nagar, Madurai – 625 020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/6 W.P.(MD)No.6044 of 2012 M.DHANDAPANI, J.
ogy W.P.(MD)No.6044 of 2012 18.02.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6/6