Allowed

Goodluck Service Station v. the Regional Director and Another

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2021WRIC/5212/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner challenged an order determining ten employees worked in its establishment under the ESI Act. The High Court held that a site inspection report listing only seven employees and vaguely mentioning three night-shift employees without names was unreliable and set aside the order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 02.12.2009 setting the statutory liability of the petitioner was set aside.

Goodluck Service Station Vs the Regional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5212 of 2010

¶3

Petitioner :- Goodluck Service Station Respondent :- The Regional Director And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- S.D. Kautilya Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel assisted by Sri Satyavrat Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

The impugned order dated 02.12.2009 has been passed by the Deputy Director, Regional Office, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Kanpur, in purported exercise of powers under Section 45A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The impugned order dated 02.12.2009 finds that there are ten employees working in the petitioner establishment and the establishment falls within the ambit of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.

¶7

Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel assisted by Sri Satyavrat Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 02.12.2009 has been passed on the foot of an enquiry report dated 08.10.2004. The report is vague and uncertain. The names of only seven employees have been stated in the said report while the names and particulars of other three employees allegedly

¶8

working in the establishment has not been disclosed.

¶9

The factum of the report could not be denied by Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents-corporation.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

The impugned order dated 02.12.2009 passed by the competent authority/Deputy Director, Regional Office, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Kanpur in exercise of powers under Section 45A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 finds that the ten persons are working in the petitioner's establishment. The finding has been rendered upon placing exclusive reliance on the report submitted by the insurance inspectors dated 08.10.2004.

¶12

A perusal of the report which is appended as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit fully corroborates the submissions of Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel assisted by Sri Satyavrat Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner. An inspection report submitted by the insurance inspectors after a site inspection records the names of seven employees who were found to be working in the establishment. The report thereafter records that "there are three employees of night shift". The

¶13

names and material particulars of the aforesaid employees have not been disclosed. The report is vague and uncertain. Such vague and uncertain reports cannot be made the basis of fixing the statutory liability of the petitioner under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.

¶14

Another significant aspect of the matter is that the petitioner has denied the fact that ten persons are employed in the petitioner establishment. According to the petitioner, only seven persons are working whose names have been stated in the said report. Absence of names and other material particulars to identify the other three employees who are allegedly working in the night shift vitiates the aforesaid proceedings.

¶15

The impugned order dated 02.12.2009 is arbitrary and illegal. The impugned order dated passed by the dated 02.12.2009 passed by the competent authority/Deputy Director, Regional Office, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Kanpur, is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

¶16

It is open to the respondents-corporation to take action as per law.

¶17

The writ petition is allowed.

¶18

Order Date :- 21.10.2021 Ashish Tripathi

Goodluck Service Station v. the Regional Director and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goodluck Service Station v. the Regional Director and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeev Kumar Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner U.P. Ghaziabad Region , Ghaziabad and 3 Others

C/M S.P. Convent School and Another Vs Central Board of Secondary Education and Another

G.M. N.C. Railway and Anothe R Vs Jagrup and Another

M/S Wic - Chem (P) Ltd. Vs Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others

M/S Taj Hotel Vs State of U.P. and Others

Man Pal Singh Vs Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and 2 Others