M/S Multytech Enterprise and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

M/S Multytech Enterprise and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellate authority's order dated 30th October, 2023 rejecting the employers' Section 45AA appeal as time-barred should be set aside and the petitioners granted a further extension of time so that the appeal may be taken up and heard on merits. +1 more

Court's answer

The appellate authority's order dated 30th October, 2023 does not suffer from any infirmity, and there is no cogent ground to permit the petitioners one more opportunity to assail the order passed as far back as 9th November, 2021 before the appellate authority.

Ratio / Principle

Even if it were assumed, without admitting, that the petitioners had a very good case on merit, their conduct in bypassing the appealable statutory route and treating a statutory requirement lightly is deplorable; a litigant cannot ignore statutory timelines and still claim indulgence.

Key takeaways

Having obtained a benefit in the first writ petition and yet failed to avail the opportunity there granted, the petitioners are not entitled to be shown any further sympathy or favour at the second round of litigation before the Court.ratio¶12
The ESI Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at social security benefit; the employer must deduct and deposit his contribution along with the employees' contribution within the stipulated time period, failing which the employer is saddled with the consequences provided in the statute.obiter¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court (Arindam Mukherjee, J.) dismissed WPA 28297 of 2023 filed by M/s. Multytech Enterprise & Anr., employers, challenging the appellate authority's order dated 30th October, 2023 rejecting their appeal under Section 45AA of the ESI Act as time-barred. The employers had earlier been permitted by an order dated 3rd April, 2023 in WPA 19899 of 2022 to file the statutory appeal within six weeks against the competent authority's order dated 9th November, 2021 awarding Rs. 1,84,223/- under Section 45A of the ESI Act in favour of respondent no.2; having failed to avail that time, the Court held that the impugned order suffered no infirmity and that no cogent ground existed for one more opportunity. Even a strong case on merits could not excuse the petitioners' deplorable conduct; the ESI Act was observed to be beneficial social-security legislation requiring timely deposit of contributions, breach of which attracts statutory consequences. Petition dismissed; allegations in the writ petition deemed not admitted since affidavits were not called for.

1. 2024

BP In the High Court At Calcutta

Sl.2 Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Court No. 23 Appellate Side WPA 28297 of 2023 M/s. Multytech Enterprise & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Shiladitya Barma Mr. Simanta Kabir Ms. Priyanka Ghosh ..for the petitioners Mr. Ansar Mondal Mr. Asish Dutta ..for the State Ms. Mitali Bhattacharya ..for P.F. Authority Mr. T.K. Chatterjee ..for ESI Corporation

The matter appears to have a chequered history.

This is the second round of litigation by the petitioners being the employers disputing the claim of the Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as ESI Act). By an order dated 9^th November, 2021 the competent authority awarded a sum of Rs. 1,84,223/- under the provisions of Section 45A of the ESI Act in favour of the respondent no.2. The petitioners (employers) challenged the said order by filing a writ petition being WPA 19899 of 2022. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order

2

dated 3^rd April, 2023 by which the petitioners (employers) were permitted to approach the appellate authority under Section 45AA of the ESI Act to challenge the order dated 9^th November, 2021 as the same was an appealable order. A time period of six weeks was given to the employers to file the appeal. The petitioners (employers) did not avail such opportunity and much after expiry of the six weeks time period approached the appellate authority. The appellate authority by an order dated 30^th October, 2023 rejected the appeal on the ground that six weeks time period has expired.

The petitioners (employers) have challenged the said order and are seeking further extension of time by setting aside the order dated 30^th October, 2023 to permit the appeal to be taken up by the appellate authority and heard on merits. The petitioners say that it has a good case on merit as, according to the petitioners, the provisions of ESI Act is not applicable to the establishment being the petitioner no.1. Even if it is assumed without admitting that the petitioners have a very good case on merit then also the conduct of the petitioners is deplorable. The petitioners cannot take the compliance of a statutory requirement in a light manner. The object of ESI Act is social security benefit which is a beneficial legislation. The employer is required to deduct

3

and deposit if his contribution along with employees’ contribution with the authority within a stipulated time period for the benefit of the employees failing which the employer is saddled with consequences as provided in the statute. In the instant case the employers challenged the order in the writ petition without preferring an appeal when the order is an appealable order. After getting a benefit in the first writ petition the petitioners did not avail the opportunity so given. The petitioners, therefore, are not entitled to be shown any further sympathy or favour at the second round of the litigation before this Court.

The order dated 30^th October, 2023 does not suffer from any infirmity. I do not also find any cogent ground to permit the petitioners one more opportunity to assail the order passed as far back as on 9^th November, 2021 before the appellate authority.

The writ petition therefor, fails and is

accordingly dismissed.

Since I have not called for affidavit, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed to have not been admitted by the respondents.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J. )

4