Disposed

Food Corporation of India v. Employee State Insurance Nigam

Chhattisgarh HC5 Nov 2024MA/10/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal for want of prosecution of an ESI dispute between Food Corporation of India and ESIC; court held a party cannot suffer for counsel's error, set aside dismissal orders, restored original case, and directed expeditious decision.

What did the court decide?

Restoration orders set aside; original Case No.9/ESIA/2017 restored to be decided on merits within six months; parties to appear on 19.12.2024.

Food Corporation of India Vs Employee… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 5

2024:CGHC:43073

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

M.A No.10 of 2024

¶6

Food Corporation Of India, Office At Anugrah Bhawan, Maharana Pratap Chowk, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

Employee State Insurance Nigam Through - Deputy Collector, Office At 107, Jagannath Chowk, Ramnagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Smt Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Pranav Saxena appears on behalf of Shri Pradeep Saxena, Advocates.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

06.11.2024

¶15

Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2024.11.07 16:44:28 +0530

¶16

This Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of

¶17

law:-

¶18

“Whether the learned Labour Court was justified in rejecting the application for restoration filed by the Appellant?”

¶19

2 / 5

¶20

Necessary facts for adjudication of the case are that the Appellant/State is a statutory Corporation established under Section 3 of the Food Corporation Act, 1964. The Appellant has filed an application under Sections 76 & 77 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘the ESI Act’) for redressal of dispute between the Employees State Insurance Corporation and Food Corporation of India. It is alleged in the main Petition that the Appellant shall not be considered under the purview of Employees’ State Insurance Corporation. Earlier, the matter was fixed on 21.03.2022 and on such date, in the absence of both the parties, the original case was dismissed though the same was listed for hearing on the application filed under Section 75(2B) of the ESI Act. On 12.04.2022, a restoration application was preferred which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No.20/ESIA/MCC/2022 and in the said case, a wrong date has been noted by the Counsel in the diary as 10.11.2022 whereas, the same was 28.10.2022 and later, when it was inquired, the Counsel came to know that the said restoration application was also dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter, an application has been preferred for restoration of the said miscellaneous case i.e. 20/ESAI/MCC/2022 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 02.08.2023 along with the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the Appellant has failed to explain sufficient cause.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the Appellant prays to restore the original case No.9/ESIA/2017 and also to restore case No.20/ESAI/MCC/2022 and the unregistered case whereby, the restoration application has been

¶22

3 / 5

¶23

dismissed by order dated 02.08.2023. She submits that the parties have duly engaged a Lawyer and it is a settled principle that the client should not suffer merely because of the mistake on the part of a Counsel. She further submits that on account of lack of information, the Counsel has made a default, therefore, the party cannot be left to suffer for the mistake of the Counsel and the Labour Court, Bilaspur has taken a hyper technical approach, therefore, the case should be heard on merits rather than on technicalities and prays to allow the Appeal by setting aside the said award.

¶24

Contrarily, learned Counsel for the Respondent opposes the said prayer.

¶25

Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.

¶26

In the matter of Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal Kotah and

¶27

and Anr. reported in AIR 1955 SC 425, while dealing with the case arising out of Order 9 CPC, the following observation was made in paras-16 & 17, which is as under:-

¶28

“16. Now a code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is ‘procedure’, something, designed to facilitate justice and further its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to ‘both’ sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it.

¶29

Next, there must be ever present to the mind the fact that our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in them. Of course, there must be exceptions and where

¶30

4 / 5

¶31

they are clearly defined they must be given effect to. But taken by and large, and subject to that proviso, our laws of procedure should be construed, wherever that is reasonably possible, in the light of that principle.”

¶32

It is also well settled that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize on technical ground but it is capable of removing injustice and it is expected to do so. The Courts are meant to do substantial justice between the parties and technical rules or procedures should not be given precedence over doing substantial justice. Justice according to law does not merely mean technical justice but means that law has to be administered to advance justice. The words ‘sufficient cause’ must be liberally construed to enable the Court to do complete justice between the parties. In the instant case, as the Lawyer has not noted down the proper date, therefore, restoration case was dismissed, which was unregistered. Earlier also, on the date of hearing i.e. on 21.03.2022, though the case was listed for reply of the application filed by the Respondent under Section 75(2B) of the ESI Act, but both the parties were not present. The client is not expected to remain present on each and every date of hearing when he has engaged a Lawyer and it is also well settled that a party cannot be penalized for the fault of the Lawyer.

¶33

In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 02.08.2023 relating to restoration of original case passed in Case No.20/ESAI/MCC/2022, the unregistered case as also the dismissal order passed in the original Case i.e. Case No.9/ESIA/2017 are liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, the

¶34

5 / 5

¶35

original Case i.e. 9/ESIA/2017 is restored to its original number and the same is directed to be decided on merits.

¶36

Further, as the application under Section 75(2B) of the ESI Act is pending and there is a clear statutory mandate for depositing 50% of the claimed amount for filing an application by the employer who ought to take recourse under the Act only to urge for waiving or reducing the amount to be deposited, therefore, it is expected that the Labour Court, Bilaspur shall decide the said application at the earliest and also decide the main case in an expeditious manner preferably within an outer limit of 6 months from the date of receipt of this order as the matter is pending since more than 5 years. Both the parties shall remain present before the Labour Court, Bilaspur on 19.12.2024.

¶37

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the instant Appeal stands

¶38

disposed of.

¶39

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶40

Priya

Food Corporation of India v. Employee State Insurance Nigam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Food Corporation of India v. Employee State Insurance Nigam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Mittal Investment Vs M/s Monnet Ispat And Energy Ltd.

Smt. Hemlata Rajput Vs Rajendra Singh Rajput

Sarita Sahu Vs Ghanaram Sahu

Shivam Motors Private Limited Vs Yogesh Chand Newar

Vinay Singh Vs Pannalal

Lokita Bhensle @ Uttra Sahu @ Versha Sahu Vs Rohitash Chandra Bhensle