Allowed

Mr Srinivasa Raja K T v. the Regional Director

Karnataka HC28 Jun 2021WP/56044/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought quashing of a prosecution sanction order under the Employees' State Insurance Act alleging failure to provide assistance for bio-metric registration. The High Court quashed the sanction and complaint, holding the authority failed to consider the petitioner's correspondence and requests for camps.

What did the court decide?

The sanction order dated 14.08.2015 and complaint in C.C.No.389/2015 are hereby quashed.

Mr Srinivasa Raja K T Vs the Regional Director — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.No.56044/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.56044/2017 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

MR.SRINIVASA RAJA K.T. THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S ADYAR ANAND BHAVAN SWEETS INDIA PVT. LTD NO.65/1 TO 65/4, GUDDAHALLI ROAD NERALUR POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU – 562 107 REPRESENTED BY ITS MR.SRINIVASA RAJA K.T. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.R.ANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR REGIONAL OFFICE (KARNATAKA) EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION NO.10, BINNYFIELDS, BINNYPET BENGALURU – 560 023 …RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI K.KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE SANCTION ORDER DATED 14.08.2015 (ANNEXURE–K) AND THE COMPLAINT (ANNEXURE–L) PREFERRED BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICER ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT IN C.C.NO.389/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BENGALURU.

¶14

W.P.No.56044/2017

¶15

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Petitioner is seeking quashing of the sanction order (Annexure-K) dated 14.08.2015 to prosecute him for the offence under Section 85(g) punishable under Section 85(ii) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (‘the Act’ for short) and consequent proceedings in C.C.No.389/2015 before the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru.

¶19

The petitioner is registered partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling of sweets through its 40 outlets situated all over Karnataka. The petitioner being factory is covered under the provisions of the Act.

¶20

For the purpose of its business in the petitioner’s establishment around 1500 to 2000 employees work generally. During 2008-2009 the respondent under Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 (‘the Regulations’ for short) introduced issuance of

¶21

W.P.No.56044/2017

¶22

¶23

bio-metric identity cards called “Pehchan Cards” to the insured employees. Regulation 11 of Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations requires the employer to furnish particulars of his employees in Form No.1 for the purpose of including them in the identification certificate and bio-metric cards.

¶24

Regulation 16 of the Regulations states that the employer shall render all necessary assistance for the Corporation required in connection with the registration of the factory or establishment and registration of the employees and specially the photographing of such employees affixing their photographs to the identity cards.

¶25

The respondent under the notice Annexure-A dated 23.04.2015 alleged that the petitioner has not registered its 1489 employees as required under the Regulations. The respondent required the petitioner to show cause why they should not be prosecuted for violation of Section 85(g) of the Act for failure to comply with the provisions and Regulation 16 of the Regulations.

¶26

W.P.No.56044/2017

¶27

¶28

In response to that, the petitioner issued reply

¶29

as per Annexure-B dated 14.05.2015 claiming that there are no such number of employees as claimed in the notice and they are not required to be enrolled in ‘Pehchan Cards’. The petitioner sought personal hearing in the matter and requested the respondent to immediately organize ‘Pehchan Card Camp’ at their establishment and they are looking forward for the intimation.

¶30

Thereafter on 06.06.2014, the petitioner sent another e-mail to the respondent reporting that one Mr.Ravi Kumar, ESIC Inspector visited the premises on that date and requested the respondent to conduct smart card camp to enable registration of more than 2200 employees at its various outlets.

¶31

The respondent did not respond to the said requisitions of the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner sent another similar requisition as per Annexure-D dated 09.12.2014. However, no response came to that. Ultimately the Social Security Officer of the respondent’s establishment filed complaint as per Annexure-L against

¶32

W.P.No.56044/2017

¶33

¶34

the petitioner before the trial Court seeking prosecution for the offence under Section 85(g) punishable under Section 85(ii) of the Act. The complaint was purportedly filed on the basis of the sanction order (Annexure-K) allegedly issued by the respondent.

¶35

The petitioner seeks quashing of the said sanction order and the complaint on the ground that Regulation 16 of the Regulations requires the employer to render necessary assistance for registration of the employees, specially for photographing such employees and affixing the photographs to the identity card. It is further contended that the officers of the respondent not at all indicated what kind of assistance they required despite the petitioners themselves through three e-mails soliciting conducting of the smart card camps for the said purpose.

¶36

It is contended that the sanction order does

¶37

not refer to any of the correspondences at Annexures-B to D, therefore the sanction order is clearly without

¶38

W.P.No.56044/2017

¶39

¶40

application of mind and consequent prosecution is unsustainable.

¶41

Reiterating the grounds of the petition and relying on the order of this Court dated 07.09.2018 in The Management of M/s.Adyar Anand Bhavan vs. The Regional Director in W.P.No.7568/2016 learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case is covered by the said judgment.

¶42

Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that whether the petitioner extended required cooperation has to be decided on trial. He submits that at this stage, matter does not call for interference.

¶43

Regulation 16 of the Regulations states that employer shall render all necessary assistance to the Corporation. The respondent in its notice or requisition did not mention what kind of assistance is necessary to it from the petitioner. The respondent itself did not dispute the correspondence made by the petitioner requesting Inspector of the respondent to conduct smart card camps

¶44

W.P.No.56044/2017

¶45

¶46

for the purpose of registration of its employees for the pehchan cards.

¶47

The sanction order not referring to any of the such requisitions of the petitioner makes it manifestly clear that either the relevant material was not placed before the Sanctioning authority or Sanctioning Authority did not apply it’s mind while granting sanction. Further the respondent or its employees themselves were not clear what kind of assistance they require for the purpose of pehchan cards.

¶48

Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner failed to render assistance much less the necessary assistance for registration of the employees. Therefore the impugned prosecution against the petitioner amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.

¶49

This Court in The Management of M/s.Adyar Anand Bhavan referred to supra a similar matter has already taken view that the sanction order and the prosecution of the petitioner are unsustainable. Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed.

¶50

W.P.No.56044/2017

¶51

¶52

The impugned sanction order (Annexure-K) dated 14.08.2015, the complaint (Annexure-L) in C.C.No.389/2015 are hereby quashed.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

KSR

Mr Srinivasa Raja K T v. the Regional Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Srinivasa Raja K T v. the Regional Director

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

Ibm India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Org Informatics Ltd.

Kamalakanth Dandayudhapani Vs M/S. Sangeetha Minerals Pvt. Ltd.

Ibm India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Org Informatics Ltd.

Sri N Murali Shankar Vs State by Vijayanagar P S

Sri G Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresh Elangovan Vs State of Karnataka