This appeal was dismissed in limine. The High Court held that there was no contumacious delay or negligence in the payment of contribution, and thus, damages by way of penalty could not be imposed under Section 85B of the Employees State Insurance Act.
The appeal filed by the Director, ESI Corporation was dismissed in limine.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/15TH BHADRA, 1935
Ins.APP.No. 49 of 2013 ()
ORDER/JUDGMENT IN IC 72/2012 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA DATED 31-01-2013
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT :
THE DIRECTOR
ESI CORPORATION, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, MALU'S COMPLEX ST.FRANCIS CHURCH ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17.
BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:
M/S.ANANTH OIL EXTRACTIONS ANANTH TOWERS, VIJARAGHAVA MENON ROAD, RAVIPURAM ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 016.
THIS INSURANCE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-092013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
=========================
IN.AP.No.49 of 2013
============================ Dated this the 06th day of September, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The appeal at the instance of the Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short, "the Corporation”) arises from the judgment dated 31.01.2013 in I.C.No.72 of 2012 of the Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha (for short, "the EI Court”) setting aside Ext.P5, order dated 06.01.2012 under Sec.85B of the Employees State Insurance Act (for short, "the Act”) imposing damages on the respondent by way of penalty for delayed payment of contribution for various periods. The EI Court found that there was no contumacious delay or negligence on the part of the respondent and that payment was delayed as there were various litigations between the parties. Appellant would contend that the said judgment of the EI Court is erroneous.
IN.AP.No.49 of 2013
2
the respondent filed I.C.No.14 of 2001 in the EI Court. That application was allowed and the assessment was set aside as belated. In the meantime, the Supreme Court ruled that period of limitation under Sec.77(1A) of the Act is not applicable to a proceeding under Sec.45A of the Act. Pursuant to that, this Court set aside judgment of the EI Court in I.C.No.14 of 2001 and remitted that case for fresh decision. That case was renumbered after remand as I.C.No.4 of 2009. The Corporation was directed to make a fresh assessment. That assessment was mad. The respondent cleared contribution on 11.07.2011. Thereafter the appellant issued Ext.P4, notice in D18 on 24.11.2011 proposing to impose `1,03,143/- as damages by way of penalty for delayed payment of contribution as aforesaid. To that, the respondent replied referring to the litigation between the parties. The EI Court found that the explanation is acceptable, there is no contumacious delay or negligence on the part of the respondent in payment of the contribution and consequently set aside the impugned order.
IN.AP.No.49 of 2013
3
and that levy of damages being in the nature of penalty, the provision has to be strictly interpreted.
The appeal is dismissed in limine.
Sd/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE
Sbna
True Copy
P. A to Judge
IN.AP.No.49 of 2013
4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether damages by way of penalty should be imposed for delayed payment of contribution in absence of contumacious delay or negligence.
THE DIRECTOR, Employees State Insurance Corporation
M/S.ANANTH OIL EXTRACTIONS
THOMAS P.JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
