Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(c) The credit for contribution paid for September, 2009 was not received in   respondent's   account   and   contribution   for   the   period   01.10.2009   to 31.03.2012 was not paid by the petitioner at all till the issuance of the order under Section 45(A) dated 12.06.2014 and C­19 letter dated 09.02.2015. Even the copy of already paid challan for Rs.2796/­ for the month of September, 2009 was submitted by the petitioner only on 11.08.2015 through his letter.

   (d) The petitioner failed to inform the respondent/ESI Corporation about the alleged payment in response to our show cause notice dated 01.05.2014 affording him opportunity of personal hearing on 29.05.2014. The self serving averment   put   forth   by   the   petitioner   about   reduction   in   employment   is unsubstantiated and unauthenticated for the reason that the petitioner failed to CS No. 01/16.  M/s. Imam Garments Vs. ESIC & Ors.  Page no. 13 of 13 submit return in form no. 5 as required under Regulation 10C,11,12, 16 and 32 of ESI (General) Regulations, 1950. Further, the petitioner despite service of C­18   notice   dated   01.05.2014   opted   not   to   appear   on   29.05.2014   or   even submitted   no  written   representation   thereto,   the   respondent/ESI   Corporation therefore,   was   left   with   no  other   alternative   except   to   pass   the   Assessment order dated 12.06.2014. The respondent denied that petitioner had intimated about   the   closure   of   the   petitioner's   unit   w.e.f.   31.03.2010   allegedly acknowledged   by   respondent   no.   2   on   17.06.2010.   It   is   further   added   that petitioner   did   not   submit   any   closure   documents   suggestive   of   permanent closure of the firm.

(e)   The   petitioner   was   afforded   an   opportunity   on   29.05.2014   to   put across his point of view and adduce relevant documents in response to C­18 notice   dated   01.05.2014   which   was   duly   acknowledged   by   the   petitioner, before   the   authorized   officer   in   determining   the   correct   contribution   The petitioner neither represented his case, through oral or written submission, nor produced any record, such as Attendance register/wages register, full and final payment to his employees, accounts books or documents to establish that his factory was permanently closed on 31.03.2010, before the Assessing Officer on 29.05.2014.   The   petitioner   in   afterthought   subsequent   to   the   assessment order/C­19 (recovery certificate) intimated about closure of the unit and full and final payment to his employees through his letter dated 11.08.2015 which was   duly   replied   by   respondent   corporation   vide   letter   dated   23.10.2015, rejecting the same. 

(c)  The  petitioner/PW­1  thereafter  pleaded and  deposed  that  due  to  lack  of finance and work, the petitioner closed his unit of garments on 31.03.2010 and communicated about the same to respondent on 17.06.2010.  PW­1 proved the wages record showing two employees for February, 2010 as Ex.PW1/2 and receipt showing sale of garments machines by petitioner dated 01.06.2010 as Ex.PW1/3. The challan of Rs.2,796/­ for deposition of funds under ESIC as against   an   employee   for   January,   2010   was   Ex.PW1/1.   The   letter   dated CS No. 01/16.  M/s. Imam Garments Vs. ESIC & Ors.  Page no. 13 of 13 17.06.2010  was   proved  as   Ex.PW1/4.   The   respondent  had  denied  this.   The respondent   stated   that   the   alleged   letter   dated   17.06.2010   intimating   the respondent about closure of business was not sent to them.  Even, the copy of the challan Ex.PW1/1 for the month of September, 2009 was submitted by the petitioner on 11.08.2015.  A perusal of the Ex.PW1/4 clearly shows that firstly it is not dated.   Secondly, it does not provide any details of the name of the proprietor in the entire letter.     Moreover, the said letter does not make any reference to the ESIC Code allotted to it by the respondent so that anyone receiving it can proceed on the said letter.  Most importantly, it does not bear the seal of the respondent corporation but has only a stamp which is denied by the respondent.   PW­1 in the cross­examination deposed that he handed over the letter personally at the office of ESIC but cannot tell the name/designation of the person to whom he had handed over Ex. PW1/4.     He had also not informed any other department regarding the closure of the firm.

PW­1   has   deposed   that   he   sold   the   machines   to   Farukh   Usman   on 01.06.2010   vide   receipt   Ex.   PW1/3.     The   said   exhibit   is   a   self   serving document as firstly, it is prepared by the petitioner himself and secondly, it does   not   give   details   of   the   machinery   sold.     Critically,   PW­1   in   cross­ examination has deposed that he does not know any person by the name of Salim Usmani.  He also deposed that he has not filed any document on judicial record   that   his   workforce   is   getting   reduced   slowly/gradually.     He   further deposed   that   he   has   not   filed   any   documentary   proof   to   show   that   he   had vacated the tenanted premises from which he was running his factory.   He admitted that the attendance register and wage register have not been filed by him along with evidence by affidavit.   In any case, it is irrelevant as what had to   be   proved   is   that   the   petitioner   had   intimated   the   respondent   about   the CS No. 01/16.  M/s. Imam Garments Vs. ESIC & Ors.  Page no. 13 of 13 closure of his business on 31.03.2010 which has not been done.   It is important because the statutory liability under the ESIC Act will continue to be on the petitioner   till   the   aspect   of   closure   of   the   firm   is   duly   intimated   to   the respondent.    This  issue  is  decided accordingly against the petitioner and in favor of the respondent.