Allowed

Smt.Remanika Jayan v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation

Kerala HC20 Dec 2016WP(C)/34614/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an assessment notice under the Employees State Insurance Act failing to appear for the hearing. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the assessment, and directed the authority to provide a fresh hearing opportunity after payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P2 assessment set aside; petitioner to appear before 2nd respondent on 16.01.2017 after paying Rs. 2,000 as costs; respondents to finalize proceedings after affording opportunity.

Smt.Remanika Jayan Vs Employees' State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 34614 of 2016 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SMT.REMANIKA JAYAN, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.P.K.JAYAPPAN, PROPRIETRESS, M/S.REMANIKA BEAUTY PARLOUR & LADIES TAILORING, 'SUKUMA' SHOPPING COMPLEX, NEAR DEVI TEMPLE, CHERTHALA, PIN - 688 524, RESIDING AT 'SOUPARNIKA', S.N.PURAM (P.O.), CHERTHALA - 688 582.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR) SRI.K.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SMT.DHANYA SANTHOSH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 002.

¶12

3. RECOVERY INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE RECOVERY INSPECTOR, INSPECTION OFFICE, FACTORY WARD ESI DISPENSARY COMPOUND, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688 001.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

WP(C).No. 34614 of 2016 (B)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXHIBIT-P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 21.09.2016 PETITIONER.	ABOVE PERSONAL COMMUNICATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
EXHIBIT-P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 14.10.2016	RECOVERY NOTICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 24.10.2016 THE 2ND RESPONDEN	ABOVE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO T.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT. R1 :	TRUE COPY OF THE C11 NOTICE DATED 24.1.2014.
EXT. R1A :	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 24.1.2014.
EXT. R1B :	TRUE COPY OF THE C-18 ADHOC NO.48000339590000999/SROK/INS1 DATED 25.4.2014.
EXT. R1C :	TRUE COPY OF THE C-18 ACTUAL BASIS NO.48000339590000999/SROK/INS1 DATED 31.8.2015.
EXT. R1D :	TRUE COPY OF THE CPR NOTICE NO.48000339590000999/CP/195902/4419 DATED 26.9.2016.
EXT. R1E :	TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER NO.48000339590000999/RECOVERY DATED 14.10.2016.
	//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE

¶22

mbr/

¶23

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶24

W.P.(C) No. 34614 of 2016

¶25

Dated this the 20^th day of December, 2016

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

1.The petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 notice issued under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, “the Act”).

¶28

2.As per Ext.P1, the petitioner was directed to appear on 21.10.2016 to show cause as to why assessment should not be finalized under Section 45-A of the Act. The petitioner did not appear on that day. It appears that thereafter, the assessment has been completed. The petitioner's case is that she could not appear on 21.10.2016 due to the fact that her husband met with an accident.

¶29

3.In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is contended that though several opportunities were given to the petitioner, she did not turn up. In

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 34614 of 2016

¶31

..2..

¶32

paragraph 16, it is stated as follows;

¶33

“The reminder letter dated 14.10.2016 was based on the C 18 (actual) dated 31.08.2015 and not based on the C 18 (adhoc) notices dated 02.09.2015 and 21.09.2016. The hearings afforded on 20.10.2016 and 21.10.2016 were against different claims/amounts of different periods issued by different authorities. There is no connection between the letter dated 14.10.2016 and the C18 (adhoc) notices dated 02.09.2015 and 21.09.2016.”

¶34

4.However, this Court is of the view that an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner on terms. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed as follows;

¶35

Ext.P2 assessment is set aside.

¶36

The petitioner shall appear before the 2^nd respondent on 16.01.2017 on payment of a sum of 2,000/- (Rupees₹ two thousand only) as costs, which shall be made with the respondent concerned on or before 05.01.2017.

¶37

The respondents shall, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, finalize the proceedings without any delay.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶40

bka/-

Smt.Remanika Jayan v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Remanika Jayan v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation

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

K.T.Reajashekara Vs M.S.Poornima

V.Radhakrishnan Vs District General of Police

Aboobaker Kunju Vs Recovery Officer,Employees P.F.Organisat

New Dimos Furniture Vs Assistant Labour Officer Kundara

Biju B. Vs the State of Kerala

O.Abdul Azeez Vs the Koduvally Co-Operative Housing Society Limited