Disposed

Nila Hospital Pvt. Ltd. v. Director General

Kerala HC28 Jun 2017WA/1329/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ appeal challenging an ESI order. While confirming the lower court decision regarding Ext.P9, the court clarified the appellant's entitlement to benefit under Ext.P7 for specific new employees.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed confirming judgment but clarifying entitlement to benefits under Ext.P7 for certain employees; appeal under Section 45(AA) allowed within 15 days.

Nila Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs Director General — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/7TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶7

WA.No. 1329 of 2017 () IN WP(C).17698/2017

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17698/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 29-05-2017

¶9

APPELLANT(S):

¶10

NILA HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.

¶11

PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 679 303 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR P.KUNHALI.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.K.ANAND

¶13

SRI.HUSSAIN KOYA VALIYAVEEDAKATH

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

DIRECTOR GENERAL, ESI CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN,

¶16

COMRADE INDERJEET GUPTA MARG, NEW DELHI- 110 002.

¶17

STATE OF KERALA,

¶18

LABOUR & SKILLS (B)DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶19

DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

¶20

REGIONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROAD, THRISSUR- 680 020.

¶21

R BY SRI RENI ANTO KANDAMKULATHY, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R BY SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, ESI CORPORATION

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.

¶24

------------------------------------------W.A. No. 1329 of 2017 ( ) -----------------------------------------Dated this the 28^th day of June, 2017.

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Antony Dominic,J.

¶27

The appellant filed the writ petition challenging Exts.P9, P(a) and P9(b) orders passed by the third respondent. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge declined to interfere with the order and relegated the appellant to pursue appellate remedies as provided under Section 45(AA) of the ESI Act. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us.

¶28

We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3.

¶29

Having heard both sides, we are of the considered opinion that the grievance of the appellant with respect to Ext.P9 order has to be got resolved in an appeal filed under Section 45(AA) of the Act. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Ext.P7 and therefore the learned Single Judge ought to have directed that the appellant be

¶30

W.A. No.1329/2017

¶31

-2-

¶32

given the benefit of Ext.P7.

¶33

Insofar as this claim of the appellant is concerned, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents referred to clause 1.iii and argued that the benefit of the scheme can be claimed only for the liability arising after 01.01.2017 and that the scheme will not have any bearing on the actions taken/required under the ESI Act prior to 01.01.2017. There is force in what is contended and in any case that claim is also a matter which the appellant can urge in an appeal as provided under Section 45(AA) of the Act.

¶34

However, we do find force in the claim of the appellant for the benefit of Ext.P7. Insofar as his new employees, who are not covered by any action for the period taken/required prior to 01.01.2017 are concerned, to our mind, the appellant is entitled to avail the benefit of Ext.P7.

¶35

Therefore, this appeal is disposed of confirming the judgment passed by the learned single Judge, but clarifying that the appellant shall be free to claim the benefit Ext.P7, insofar as its new employees to whom clause 1.iii is inapplicable are concerned.

¶36

W.A. No.1329/2017

¶37

-3-

¶38

It is also directed that having regard to the pendency of this appeal, if an appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 45(AA) within 15 days from today, that would be entertained by the appellate authority, provided the appellant complies with the conditions requiring deposit as well.

¶39

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

¶40

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

¶41

¶42

W.A. No.1329/2017 -4-

Nila Hospital Pvt. Ltd. v. Director General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nila Hospital Pvt. Ltd. v. Director General

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

A.Divakaran Vs State of Kerala

G.Rajeevan Vs Tahsildar

A.K.Junaise Vs the Intelligence Officer (Ib) II

Shanmughan Vs District Collector

M/S. Surya Catering Services Vs Assistant Commissioner

Saramma Binu Vs B.Chandra Bose