Dismissed¶18

M/S. Cmj Service Private Limited v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors.

Calcutta HC5 Mar 2024WPA/3131/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CMJ Services Private Limited v Employees' State Insurance Corporation; WPA 3131 of 2024; High Court at Calcutta; Arindam Mukherjee J.; ESI Act 1948; Section 45-A assessment; Section 45AA appellate order dated 20 November 2023; appeal arising from order dated 6 August 2018; show cause notice 17 December 2022; contribution Rs. 13,53,429/- for January 2017 to March 2021; Jamnagar partially notified/non-implemented area; Reliance Industries Limited; Kolkata registered office implemented area; failure to segregate employees; written submission 30 October 2023 considered; writ petition dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed without any order as to costs. ¶18

M/S. Cmj Service Private Limited Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 20 November 2023 passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 45AA, disallowing the petitioner's appeal, suffers from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality, or is perverse/mechanical. +2 more

¶15

Court's answer

The order dated 20 November 2023 passed by the Appellate Authority does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality, and is neither perverse nor mechanical in upholding the order under appeal.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

For the employees engaged in the petitioner's Kolkata unit at its registered office (an implemented area), the petitioner was required to make payment of contribution, irrespective of its plea regarding employees at Jamnagar.

¶15

Key takeaways

The petitioner failed to segregate, in its written submission or any other document, the number of employees engaged in an implemented area and a non-implemented area, and did not provide other particulars justifying non-filing of returns and non-payment of contribution.ratio¶15
Despite being given several opportunities, the petitioner did not provide the relevant facts, figures or books of accounts.ratio¶15
All the issues raised by the petitioner, including the points in its written submission of 30 October 2023, were considered and dealt with by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPA 3131 of 2024, High Court at Calcutta, Appellate Side, decided 05.03.2024, Arindam Mukherjee, J.) filed by M/s. CMJ Services Private Limited, the employer, challenging the Appellate Authority's order dated 20 November 2023 passed under Section 45AA of the E.S.I. Act, 1948, disallowing its appeal arising from an order dated 6 August 2018. Background: in Section 45-A proceedings, after a show cause notice dated 17 December 2022 for non-payment of contribution for January 2017 to March 2021, non-production of replies/details and the principal employer's non-appearance on 17 January 2022, the employer was directed by order dated 11 February 2022 to pay Rs. 13,53,429/- as contribution. Holding: the impugned order suffers from no infirmity, irregularity or illegality and is neither perverse nor mechanical; whatever the position on employees at Jamnagar (partially notified/non-implemented area, services rendered at Reliance Industries Limited's office there), the petitioner was required to pay contribution for employees engaged at its Kolkata unit at the registered office (an implemented area); the petitioner failed to segregate employee numbers between implemented and non-implemented areas or furnish particulars/books of account despite several opportunities; and the Appellate Authority did consider the written submission filed on 30 October 2023. Writ petition dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶1

1. 2024

¶2

BP Sl.18 Court No. 23

¶3

In the High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side

¶4

WPA 3131 of 2024

¶5

M/s. CMJ Services Private Limited Vs.

¶6

Employees’ State Insurance Corporation & Ors.

¶7

Mr. Victor Chatterjee Mr. Pranav Sharma ..for the petitioner

¶8

Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad ..for the E.S.I. Corporation

¶9

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

¶10

The petitioner is the employer. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 20^th November, 2023 under which the concerned authority disallowed the appeal arising from an order dated 6^th August, 2018. The order dated 6^th August, 2018 was passed in proceedings under Section 45-A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as E.S.I. Act). On perusal of the order dated 11^th February, 2022, it appears that for non-payment of the

¶11

¶12

contribution under the E.S.I. Act for the period of January, 2017 to March, 2021 a show cause notice was issued on 17^th December, 2022. Despite receipt of the show cause notice, no reply or details of the contribution due to have been collected/received by the employer were produced. The principal employer also did not appear on 17^th January, 2022. The employer was, therefore, directed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,53,429/- as contribution for the period of January 2017 to March 2021. This order was challenged under the provisions of Section 45AA of the E.S.I. Act. Before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner claims to have filed a written submission on 30^th October, 2023. In the written objection the main ground for non furnishing of the account is that the employer being a service provider had provided services at the office of Reliance Industries Limited at Jamnagar, Gujarat. According to the petitioner, Jamnagar is partially notified area. As the employees were engaged in a nonimplemented area, the petitioner says that it had no obligation to contribute or file returns for the employees engaged in such exempted area. The petitioner alleges that the written submission filed on 30^th October, 2023 has not been considered by the Appellate Authority while passing the order dated 20^th November, 2023.

¶13

On perusal of the order dated 20^th November,

¶14

¶15

2023, it is clear that the petitioner has a unit at his registered office at Kolkata which is an implemented area. Assuming without admitting that the petitioner had engaged employees at Jamnagar a partially implemented area for whom no contribution was required to be paid but for the employees engaged in the Kolkata unit (at its registered office), the petitioner was required to make payment of the contribution. The petitioner has not segregated in its written submission or in any other document the number of those employees engaged in an implemented area and a non-implemented area. The petitioner also did not provide for other particulars on the basis whereof the petitioner was justifying the non filing of the returns and non payment of contribution. The petitioner was given several opportunities but did not provide such facts and figures or the relevant books of accounts. All these issues were considered by the Appellate Authority in the order impugned. The Appellate Authority has also dealt with all the points raised by the appellant in the written submission. The order dated 20^th November, 2023 is clear. The order does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality. The order is also not perverse or upholds the order under appeal in a mechanical manner.

¶16

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the

¶17

¶18

challenge of the order dated 20^th November, 2023 fails. The writ petition is dismissed without however any order as to costs.

¶19

(Arindam Mukherjee, J. )

¶20

M/S. Cmj Service Private Limited v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Cmj Service Private Limited v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Vesco Products Company Vs Ramesh Shaw

Usha Martin Limited Vs Til Limited

In the Goodsof Anjali Chakravarty (Deced) Vs Na

Sandip Das and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jogindar Shaw @ Yogendra Sah Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Paul @ Pal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.