Allowed

M/s. Sri Sai Balaji Associartes v. The Deputy Director

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Jan 2020WP/5022/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge high court allowed a writ petition filed against an order demanding ESI contributions. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter, holding that the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to place its case before the authority, violating principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 01.12.2017 set aside; matter remanded to the 1st respondent-authority to reconsider the issue by giving notice and opportunity.

M/s. Sri Sai Balaji Associartes Vs The Deputy… — Consumer Protection | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.5022 of 2019

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 1^st respondent in SRO/TPTY/ 79000448150000503/1212017317 dated 01.12.2017, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

The case of the petitioner-firm is that its business is to act as a contractor for Central or State Government authorities for the construction of buildings of all descriptions, roads, bridges, earth work, sewers, tanks, drains, culverts, channels sewage, trading of chemicals, computer job works, etc. Even though it has not engaged any employee, but for the process of submission of tenders it was registered under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 with effect from 01.06.2013. As there are no employees engaged by the firm, it has not paid any contributions from the date of coverage of the firm. The Managing Partner of the petitioner-firm states that no notice was served on him and he was hospitalized during the period from September, 2017 to November, 2017. The impugned order was issued under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act for payment of Rs.3,64,650/towards contribution for the period from 6/2013 to 3/2016 and an amount of Rs.1,58,304/- towards interest up to 18.07.2018, within 60 days from the date of receipt of order.

¶6

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not engaged any employee on contract nor paid any wages to the employees, but only paid administrative charges. As per the letter dated 07.03.2019, he could not appear before the authorities due to ill-health. The notice was issued only on hypothetical assumption that the petitioner had engaged the employees. As per the order of this Court dated 12.07.2019, he has already paid 50% of the demanded amount of Rs.3,64,650/-. Though the petitioner could not participate in the enquiry as per show-cause notice, he would have given another opportunity to participate in the enquiry. The impugned order clearly states that the employer has neither availed the personal hearing opportunities provided nor furnished details of actual contribution payable as per his records or paid monthly contribution for the period indicated in the notice till the date of order. Hence, the authority determined contribution on adhoc basis as per the calculation indicated in the show-cause notice dated 10.10.2017. He further states that if an opportunity is given, the petitioner will place all its grievances before the authority.

¶8

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the leaned counsel for the petitioner, and on perusal of the record, this Court, in the interest of justice, felt it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 01.12.2017 on the ground that the petitioner has not given a proper opportunity to put forth its

¶9

¶10

case before saddling with huge amount of Rs.3,64,650/along with interest to a tune of Rs.1,58,304/- as required under the principles of natural justice.

¶11

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 01.12.2017 and the matter is remanded back to the 1^st respondent-authority to re-consider the whole issue under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act, 1948, by giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner is also directed to co-operate with the enquiry. No order as to costs.

¶12

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶13

__________________ M.GANGA RAO, J

¶14

Date: 23.01.2020 anr

¶15

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶17

Writ Petition No. 5022 of 2019

¶18

23-01-2020

¶19

anr

M/s. Sri Sai Balaji Associartes v. The Deputy Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sri Sai Balaji Associartes v. The Deputy Director

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

J.Hemasanakar Rao, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

Sri Y.Venkateswarao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Thota Narayan.a Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pichikala Vishnu Murthy Vs Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited.

South Star Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs a.P.State Financial Corporation Ltd.

P Shanmugam Vs State of Andhra Pradesh