Jharkhand High Court
Employees State Insurance Corporation ... vs Tata Iron And Steel Company Ltd Through ... on 8 January, 2018
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L. P. A. No. 356 of 2009
.....
Employees State Insurance Corporation through
its Regional Director, Ranchi and Ors. ... ...Appellant
-V e r s u s-
Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. and Ors. ... ...Respondents
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
...
For the Appellant : - Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
For the Respondent-State :- JC to GP-III
For the Respondent No. 1 :- Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Adv.
...
10/08.01.2018Learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent-State and the writ-petitioner/ respondent no. 1 are present.
Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment recorded undertaking of the respondent no. 5- Company (as per para-9 of the affidavit dated 06.03.2009 of its affidavit) to pay demanded amount in the event its application for exemption from the provisions of Employees State Insurance Corporation Act is refused by the State Government.
From the pleadings in the connected writ petition, it appears that respondent no. 1, Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand by way of supplementary affidavit dated 19.05.2009 brought on record the order dated 14.05.2009, by which the application for exemption of the company M/s Indian Steel and Wire Product Ltd., Jamshedpur for the period 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2006 was disallowed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that M/s Indian Steel and Wire Product Ltd. (ISWP) has undergone revival but it is functioning as a subsidiary company of the writ petitioner M/s Tata Iron Steel Company Ltd. In view of the undertaking given by the M/S ISWP, the amount attached for recovery of the demand of Rs. 29,53,351/- towards ESIC dues can be paid by the M/s ISWP to the writ petitioner instead of the appellant-Corporation being asked to refund it to the writ petitioner-company.
Though the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 is represented in the present Memo of Appeal, but it appears that no notices have been issued upon the respondent no. 3 (respondent no. 5 M/s ISWP in the writ petition).
For effective adjudication, therefore, its presence is necessary. Let notices be issued at the both address under registered cover on the respondent no. 3 for which requisites etc. must be filed within one week, failing which this appeal shall stand rejected without further reference to the Bench.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 shall seek specific instruction whether the respondent no. 3-company has undergone revival and its net worth is positive or not pursuant to the revival package.
Let the case appear under the appropriate heading. Learned counsel for the appellant would also seek instruction whether any fresh or subsequent demand has been issued for realization of the remaining liability of the corporation against M/s ISWP during pendency of the appeal.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Kamlesh/