M.A. No. 17 of 2009 dismissed an appeal against an order finding an ESI Corporation demand notice null and void and directing a refund. The High Court held no substantial question of law arose as the lower court adequately considered evidence regarding employee count.
The appeal was dismissed without any costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
M.A. No. 17 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No.17 of 2009
------ (Against the Judgment dated 24th October, 2008 passed by learned Court of Insurance under the ESI Act-cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar in ESI Case No. 2 of 2002.)
------
Versus
M/s Kalyani Iron Foundry, Shahid Ashram Road, Doeghar Represented through its proprietor Inder Narayan Mishra, son of Late Badri Narayan Mishra, Resident of Shahid Ashram Road, P.O. & P.S.-Deoghar, District- Doeghar
.... .... …. Respondent
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate ------
By the Court:- Heard the Parties.
1
M.A. No. 17 of 2009
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 which reads as under:-
“ 82 . Appeal. –(1) Save as expressly provided in this section, no appeal shall lie from an order of an Employees’ Insurance Court.
(2) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an Employees’ Insurance Court if it involves a substantial question of law.
(3) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days.
(4) The provisions of sections 5 and 12 of the [Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)], shall apply to appeals under this section.”
2
M.A. No. 17 of 2009
the respondent-unit to deposit Rs.36,831.50/- within fifteen days from the date of such notice. The said claim has been made on the basis of an imaginary survey report prepared by the corporation on the basis of table work. The respondent-unit deposited the said amount. Prior to such demand notice, the appellant-corporation instituted a certificate case for recovery of the said amount in connection with the period from 16.11.1982 to 03.09.1985 but no order was passed by the certificate officer in view of the objection filed by the respondent-unit.
3
M.A. No. 17 of 2009
under the Act visited the Establishment of M/s. Kalyani Iron Foundry, Sahid Ashram Road, Deoghar on 7.7.82 and 5.8.83 respectively, found 15 employees working on 7.7.82 and more than 20 employees working every month from the month of Nov, 82 to August, 83 from the verification of Attendance Register on 5.8.83 respectively?
(iii) Is the Establishment of M/s. Kalyani Iron Foundry covered under the Provisions of E.S.I. Act, 1948 from 16.11.82 to 30.9.85?
(iv) Is the notice dt. 29.7.93 bearing letter No. P/R/428017/2509 issued by the Recovery Officer of the Office of E.S.I.C. Patna null and void?
(v) Is the applicant entitled to get the amount deposited on protest be returned?
(vi) Is the applicant entitled to get the relief as claimed to? 6. The learned court below after considering the evidence in the
record came to a finding that Sri R.N.P. Sinha and Sri M.P. Singh, both the Inspectors have never visited the establishment of the respondentunit on 07.07.1982 and 05.08.1983 respectively as claimed by the appellant-corporation and the respondent-unit was not covered under the provisions of the Employees’ State Corporation Act, 1948 and has never employed more than 10 employees. Hence the demand notice dated 27.09.1993 cannot be enforced and held the same to be null and void. The learned court below further went on to conclude that the
4
M.A. No. 17 of 2009
respondent-unit is entitled to get back the deposited amount of Rs.52,317/- and that the case before the court was maintainable and hence directed the appellant-corporation to refund Rs.52,317/deposited by the respondent-unit. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned court below treated the application filed by the respondent-unit as an application under Section 75(2)-B of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948.
5
M.A. No. 17 of 2009
though A.W.1 himself is an owner of an independent unit and only a formal witness has been examined on behalf of appellantcorporation who proved the two purported inspection reports and the learned court below having rightly answered all the issues after threadbare discussion of the evidence in record, hence no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Therefore it is submitted by Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed.
6
M.A. No. 17 of 2009
court below along with a copy of this Judgment forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 4th January, 2019 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/-
7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent unit is covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act based on its number of employees.
Whether the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law has arisen from the lower court's findings.
Whether the appeal is maintainable as it does not involve a substantial question of law.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Employees' State Insurance Corporation
M/s Kalyani Iron Foundry
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court