Allowed

The Deputy Director, v. M/S Republic Saw Mill

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2022MFA/4296/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This First Appeal challenged an ESI Court order remanding the matter to the ESI Corporation for contribution assessment. The High Court held that the ESI Court has original jurisdiction to decide such disputes and cannot remand them to the Corporation when it can decide the matter itself.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.11.2019 set aside; proceedings restored for reconsideration by the ESI Court.

The Deputy Director, Vs M/S Republic Saw Mill — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4296/2020 (ESI)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, ESI DISPENSARY BUILDING, BADE MAKHAN EXTN. BANGALORE MYSORE ROAD, MYSORE-570 007

¶9

THE RECOVERY OFFICER ESI CORPORATION 1ST FLOOR, ESI DISPENSARY BUILDING, BADE MAKHAN EXTN. BANGALORE MYSORE ROAD, MYSORE-570007

¶10

... APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI. S B PAVIN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

M/S REPUBLIC SAW MILL BEHIND TOWN CLUB CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313 MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶14

... RESPONDENT (NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT)

¶15

¶16

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 82(2) OF EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE ACT 1948, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2019 PASSED IN ESI. APPLICATION NO. 19/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE COURT AT MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 75 OF THE ESI ACT.

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The ESI Corporation and its Officer - the appellants have impugned the order dated 30.11.2019 in E.S.I. Application No.19/2018 on the file of the Employees' State Insurance Court, Mysuru (for short, ' ESI Court' ). The appellants have impugned the order dated 30.11.2019 and the operative portion reads as under:

¶20

"The Application filed by the Applicant under Sec.75 of ESI Act is hereby partly allowed and the Order passed by the Respondent Corporation bearing No.SRO.MYS.INS.73-000-32256-000999/1252018601 dated 25-01-2018 Under Sec.45A of the Act is hereby set aside and the

¶21

¶22

matter is remanded to the Respondent to hear the same and to assess the contribution on actuals in respect of the number of employees and the actual wages paid to the employees by giving opportunity to the Applicant Establishment to produce relevant documents within reasonable time."

¶23

Sri. S.B.Pavin, the learned counsel for the appellants,

¶24

submits that the respondent has disputed the demand for contribution at the rate of Rs.8,250/- per employee for 8 employees on the solitary ground that the respondent was not issued with notice before such determination and the ESI Court has remanded the proceedings to the ESI Corporation to reconsider the demand after extending an opportunity to the respondent to produce relevant documents. However, the settled law is that the ESI Court, vested with the original jurisdiction, must decide a dispute and not remand a dispute to the ESI Corporation to redetermine an issue.

¶25

¶26

Sri. S.B. Pavin, in this regard, relies upon the decision of this Court in the Miscellaneous First Appeal No.3970/2001 (ESI) which is decided on 17.06.2003 . On the question of ESI Corporation's jurisdiction to remand, this Court has held as follows:

¶27

15. In the case of Regional Director, ESI Corporation Vs. M/s. Balki Data Forms Pvt., Ltd., in M.F.A.No.2777/2001 c/w M.F.A.No.2776/2001 (ESI) dated 14 1 2003 a similar question arose for consideration. The Court in the said case has framed substantial question of law as follows,

¶28

"Whether in the facts and circumstances of these cases, the ESI Court, could remit the matter to the Corporation when itself could decide the matter"

¶29

The learned Single Judge has held that the when the law envisages the ESI Court to decide the matter by it having original jurisdiction, the ESI Court was not right in remitting the matter to the Corporation. I am, with respect, in complete agreement with the following observation of the learned Single Judge;

¶30

¶31

"In the above view of the matter, when the law envisages the ESI Court to decide the matter by it having original jurisdiction, the ESI Court was not right in remitting the matter to the Corporation to re-determine the contribution, more so, when no record or material whatsoever was produced regarding actual employment or wages of 35 employees referred to in the report submitted by the ESI Inspector"

¶32

In the light of the above, it would be irrefutable that the impugned order cannot be sustained and therefore, this Court must intervene. Hence, the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.11.2019 is set aside and the proceedings in ESI Application No.19/2018 on the file of the Employees' State Insurance Court, Mysuru, is restored for reconsideration.

¶35

The ESI Corporation shall appear before the ESI Court without further notice on 08.08.2022 and the ESI

¶36

¶37

Court shall reconsider the merits of the application after due notice to the respondent but in an expedited manner.

¶38

SD/JUDGE

¶39

The Deputy Director, v. M/S Republic Saw Mill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Deputy Director, v. M/S Republic Saw Mill

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

Smt Hemavathi Vs M/S Megacity(Bengaluru) Developers and Builders

Divyajothi Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs the Deputy Registrar

Caterpillar Financial Services India Private Limited Vs Venkatesh

Smt D K Vinoda Kumari Vs Shri K Venkatesh

Smt K M Manjula Vs Smt K M Prabhamani

Caterpillar Financial Services India Private Limited Vs Tarun Kumar Koduri