Dismissed

Esi Corporation v. M/S Bhima & Brothers Jewellers

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2025MFA/6576/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against an ESI Court order dismissing a contribution demand was dismissed. The High Court upheld the lower court's finding that various payments, including bonus, security charges, and repair costs, did not fall within the definition of 'wages'. The appeal lacked merit, and the lower court's findings were affirmed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, and the judgment of the Employees Insurance Court dated 04.06.2015 was affirmed.

Esi Corporation Vs M/S Bhima & Brothers… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:23547 MFA No. 6576 of 2015

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6576 OF 2015 (ESI)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

E.S.I CORPORATION NO.10, BINNY FIELDS BINNYPET BANGALORE-560 023 (PRESENT ADDRESS) ESI CORPORATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE 1^ST FLOOR, ESI DISPENSARY BUILDING BADEMAKAN EXTENSION BANGALORE-MYSORE ROAD MYSORE-570 007 NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR …APPELLANT (BY SRI. C. SHASHIKANTHA, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S BHIMA & BROTHERS JEWELLERS REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR N. GOPALAKRISHNAN NO.96, D.DEVARAJA URS ROAD MYSORE-570 001 …RESPONDENT

¶10

(BY SRI. S. SANTHOSH NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23547 MFA No. 6576 of 2015

¶12

HC-KAR

¶13

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 82(2) OF THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2015 PASSED ON E.S.I APPLICATION NO.8/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, JUDGE, C/C EMPLOYEES' INSURANCE COURT, MYSORE, ALLOWING FILED U/S 75 OF E.S.I ACT.

¶14

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶17

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the appellant or "ESI Corporation"), under Section 82(2) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 04.06.2015, passed by the Employees Insurance Court at Mysore in ESI Application No.08/2009. By the said order, the ESI Court

¶18

allowed the application filed under Section 75 of the Act by M/s Bhima and Brothers Jewellers, (hereinafter referred to

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:23547 MFA No. 6576 of 2015

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

as "respondent"), and set aside the contribution demand of Rs.77,139/- raised by the appellant under Section 45-A of the Act.

¶23

The facts leading to the appeal, in brief, are

¶24

that:

¶25

The respondent is the Registered Commercial Establishment carrying on the business of gold jewellery and covered under the provisions of the ESI Act. The premises were inspected by Insurance Inspector on 26.08.2008, who alleged that the respondent had failed to pay contributions on various components of salary and expenses for the year 2002-03. Based on the Inspection Report, a show cause notice was issued by the Corporation, culminating in the passing of an order dated 10.07.2009 under Section 45-A of the Act, demanding Rs.77,139/- as a contribution on so called committed wages. The respondent, aggrieved by this order initiated

¶26

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23547 MFA No. 6576 of 2015

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

proceedings before the ESI Court under Section 75 of the Act.

¶29

The learned ESI Court, after recording the evidence of both the sides and considering the documents placed on record, found that the impugned contribution demand was unsustainable and accordingly set aside the order passed by the Corporation. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation has filed the present appeal.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that, the Court below failed to properly appreciate the statutory presumption under Section 45-A(2) of the Act which mandates that, the order passed by the Competent Authority is sufficient proof of dues unless rebutted by the employer. It was submitted that, the respondent had failed to produce comprehensive documentary evidence such as ledger accounts, cash books, invoices or employee's registers to rebut the Corporation's claims. The appellant contended that, the Court erred in relying

¶31

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23547 MFA No. 6576 of 2015

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

primarily on oral testimony and selectively marked documents, which were insufficient to rebut the statutory findings. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memo and also the documentary evidence, so also oral evidence adduced by the Corporation, it is prayed by the counsel for the appellant to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.

¶34

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order of the Court below and submitted that, the Corporation had acted mechanically and arbitrarily in demanding the contribution

¶35

on the amounts that clearly did not fall within the definition of "Wages", under Section 2(22) of the Act. It was argued that, several payments included by the Corporation, such as bonus, ex-gratia, charges to security agencies, repair and maintenance costs, and payments to unrelated vendors, were not liable to attract contribution.

¶36

It was further contented that, there was no nexus or financial and functional integration between Bhima &

¶37

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23547 MFA No. 6576 of 2015

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Brothers Jewellers and Bhima & Brothers Diamonds, and the Corporation had wrongly aggregated transactions of the two independent entities. He further submits that, in view of the circulars issued dated 28.01.2020, the employer is not supposed to keep the records for more than 5 years.

¶40

Having heard the respective counsels and having perused the entire records, this Court finds that, the impugned judgment of the Employees Insurance Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity requiring interference under Section 82(2) of the Act.

¶41

The ESI Court, after due trial, has recorded a categorical finding that, the contribution demand was raised on amounts which were not in the nature of wages as defined under the Act. The evidence on record reveals that, the Corporation, while quantifying the alleged committed wages, included bonus and ex-gratia payments aggregating Rs.3,11,960/-, which is explicitly excluded

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:23547 MFA No. 6576 of 2015

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

from the definition of word "wages", under the Act. The Court rightly held that, inclusion of these components in

¶46

the wage base was erroneous and legally untenable.

¶47

Similarly, the Corporation included Rs.64,244/paid towards security charges in its assessment. However, the respondent had clearly shown that, the security services were availed through independently registered agencies that had their own ESI coverage codes. The Court noted that contribution, if any, in respect of security personnel, was to be paid by the agency employing them and not by the respondent. The Corporation did not place any contrary documentary evidence to rebut this position of law.

¶48

Further, amounts aggregating to Rs.4,13,410/under the head "repairs and maintenance" were taken into consideration by the Corporation as being wages. However, the evidence led by the respondent, including invoices and payment records, demonstrated that, most of

¶49

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:23547 MFA No. 6576 of 2015

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

these payments were for material costs or to independent vendors, and any labour component involved was negligible or incidental. The Court below observed that, in the absence of proof of direct employment or control over the workers involved in such repairs, no liability to pay contribution arises under the ESI Act.

¶52

The Corporation also erred in adding an amount of Rs.1,53,265/- attributed to Bhima & Brothers Diamonds, which, as held by the Court below, is a separate legal entity with no functional or financial integration with the respondent. The appellant failed to produce any material to establish a common management or interdependence between two establishments. The Court rightly rejected the Corporation's assumption that the said sum could be included in the respondent's assessment.

¶53

On the issue of the burden of proof, it is true that, under Section 45-A(2) of the Act, the Corporation's

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:23547 MFA No. 6576 of 2015

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

order is deemed sufficient proof unless rebutted. However, this does not relieve the Corporation of its duty to act judiciously and on the basis of relevant and credible material. In the present case, it appears that the assessment was made primarily on the figures found in the balance sheet without appreciating the nature of the transactions. The burden on the employer to rebut the claim under Section 75 of the Act was duly discharged through the evidence of AW-1, the accountant, and the documents marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-4. The oral testimony was consistent and supported by documentary records. The Corporation neither cross-examined the witnesses effectively nor produced evidence to discredit the respondent's case. Except by inspecting the balance sheet, no other documents are noticed or inspected by the Corporation. It is not disputed by the Corporation that the Circular so issued shows that, the employer is not under obligation to keep the records for more than 5 years old.

¶58

10 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:23547 MFA No. 6576 of 2015

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

The Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, is a beneficial piece of social welfare legislation enacted to provide certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity, employment injury and other matters incidental

¶62

thereto. It casts an obligation on the employer to contribute towards the insurance funding in respect of every employee who comes within the purview of the Act. Being a welfare statute, it must be interpreted liberally to protect the interests of the workmen, but at the same time, its provisions must not be stressed to impose unjust or arbitrary obligations on employers in the absence of statutory support.

¶63

It is further to be noted that, the ESI Court is a fact finding authority with a power to evaluate both oral and documentary evidence. The mere absence of certain ledgers or cash books does not, ipso facto , mean that the burden has not been discharged, especially when the employer has offered a reasonable and supported explanation. The Court below has weighed the evidence

¶64

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:23547 MFA No. 6576 of 2015

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

and given well reasoned findings, that cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary. Even while exercising statutory powers, the ESI Corporation is bound by the principles of natural justice and reasonableness. An order passed under Section 45-A must disclose due application of mind, reference to materials relied upon, and reasons for inclusion or exclusion of components claimed as wages. Blindly relying on the figures in a balance sheet without examining the character of those entries violates this principle. Courts have consistently held that statutory bodies must act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with law, especially when their decisions affect civil and financial liabilities of individuals and establishments.

¶67

In the result, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the appeal filed by the ESI Corporation is devoid of any merits. The findings of the Employees Insurance Court are well founded, based on cogent reasoning and supported by material evidence. There is

¶68

12 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:23547 MFA No. 6576 of 2015

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

no compelling ground to interfere with the said findings under appellate jurisdiction.

¶72

Resultantly, I pass the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

(i) The appeal filed by the appellant's Employee State Insurance Corporation is hereby dismissed.

¶75

(ii) The Judgment and Order dated 04.06.2015 passed in ESI Application No. 08/2009 by the Employee's Insurance Court at Mysore, is hereby affirmed.

¶76

(iii) If any amount has been deposited or recovered by the Corporation from the respondent pursuant to the impugned order dated 10.07.2009, the same shall be adjusted towards future contribution in accordance with law.

¶77

(iv) Costs made easy.

¶78

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶79

AM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Esi Corporation v. M/S Bhima & Brothers Jewellers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Esi Corporation v. M/S Bhima & Brothers Jewellers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rangegowda B Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Lakkamma Vs Smt. Rayakka

Sri K Dasharath Vs Vasantha Devadas

M/S Puravankara Limited Vs Mr P T Simon

Smt. H. B. Kalpana Vs Mr. Ishwar S Kadakol

Munithimmaiah T Vs Sri Y Gangappa