Spicejet Limited vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 16 February, 2022

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Spicejet Limited vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 16 February, 2022

Bench: Prateek Jalan

                   $~1 (2022 Cause List)
                   *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   +           CM(M) 143/2022 & CM APPL. 7785/2022 (stay)

                               SPICEJET LIMITED                                  ..... Petitioner
                                              Through:      Mr. Atul Sharma, Mr. Abhinav
                                                            Agnihotri, and Mr. Dipan Sethi,
                                                            Advocates.
                                                        versus
                       EMPLOYEES STATE
                       INSURANCE CORPORATION                   ..... Respondent
                                     Through: Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate
                   CORAM:
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

                                           ORDER

% 16.02.2022 The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.

1. The petitioner, by way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenges an order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the Employees' Insurance Court (Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller (South East), Saket Courts, New Delhi) [hereinafter, "EI Court"], in ESIC 8/2014 [Spice Jet Limited vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation].

2. The proceedings before the EI Court have been instituted by the petitioner under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 ["the Act"] challenging an order dated 20.05.2014, by which the respondent-Employees State Insurance Corporation ["ESIC"] directed the petitioner to pay damages in the sum of ₹15,47,174/- for delay in making the ESI contributions for the period from November, 1996 to September, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:17.02.2022 21:33:40 CM(M) 143/2022 Page 1 of 3 1997. By the impugned order, the EI Court has rejected the petitioner's application under Section 75(2-B) of the Act for waiver of the mandatory pre-deposit of 50% of the amount claimed.

3. By an order dated 11.02.2022, the submissions of Mr. Atul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, were recorded to the effect that the ESIC has levied damages under Section 85-B of the Act without determination of any contribution under Section 45-A thereof. Mr. Sharma also relied upon an order of this Court dated 04.07.2014 in CM(M) 617/2014, whereby this Court remanded the issue with regard to waiver of pre-deposit to the EI Court with certain observations.

4. On 11.02.2022, Mr. Ashok Verma, learned counsel for the ESIC, sought time to take instructions as to whether any determination of the contribution of the petitioner was made for the period in question. Mr. Verma submits that no such determination has been made in the present case, other than a determination dated 8/12.01.1998. However, Mr. Verma does not dispute that the said determination was set aside by an order dated 26.10.2010 of the EI Court, and the matter was remanded for re-assessment.

5. In the course of hearing today, Mr. Sharma submits that the petitioner would be satisfied with an order reducing the amount of pre-deposit, alongwith a direction upon the EI Court to determine the question of whether damages could have been levied under Section 85-B of the Act in the facts and circumstances of this case as a preliminary issue. In the event the EI Court comes to the conclusion on this legal point against the petitioner, then the matter may proceed for trial on evidence as to the quantum of damages.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:17.02.2022 21:33:40 CM(M) 143/2022 Page 2 of 3

6. Mr. Verma has no objection to such a course.

7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, by directing as follows:

(a) The petitioner will deposit 25% of the amount demanded in the impugned order dated 20.05.2014 within three weeks from today as a pre-condition for continuation of the proceedings before the EI Court. The impugned order of the EI Court is modified to this extent.

(b) The EI Court will first consider the question as to whether the levy of damages under Section 85-B of the Act is at all legally tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the rival contentions of the parties noted above.

(c) In the event the EI Court comes to a conclusion that the contention of the petitioner in this regard is liable to the rejected, then the matter may be set for trial at evidence.

(d) In view of the fact that the matter concerns ESI contributions for the period from November 1996 to September, 1997, and that the impugned order with regard to damages is also more seven years old, the EI Court is requested to hear the parties as expeditiously as possible and practicable.

8. The petition, alongwith the pending application, is disposed of with these directions. There will be no order as to costs.

PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 16, 2022/'hkaur' Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:17.02.2022 21:33:40 CM(M) 143/2022 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders