Dismissed

M/S.Dpn Spining Mills (P) Ltd. v. the Regional Director

Madras HC11 Oct 2011WP(MD)/4443/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging an ESI contribution order. The court held the E.S.I. Act is a complete code, mandating recourse to statutory appeals or E.S.I. Courts rather than Article 226 writ jurisdiction. The petition and connected misc. petition were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and connected miscellaneous petition dismissed. No costs awarded.

M/S.Dpn Spining Mills (P) Ltd. Vs the Regional Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:11.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN WP(MD)No.4443 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011

¶3

M/s DPN Spinning Mills(P)Ltd.,

¶4

Represented by Director K.M.P.Anandan, Eriodu Road, Sri Ramapuram Post, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

¶5

:Petitioner

¶6

-Vs-

¶7

The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, 143, Sterling Road, Chennai-600 034.

¶8

The Sub-REgional Office(Madurai), Employees' State Insurance Corporation, represented by its Assistant Director,

¶9

2nd West Street, K.K.Nagar, Madurai-20.

¶10

The Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madurai.

¶11

:Respondents

¶12

PRAYER:Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent in No.57-00047245-000-0101/INS.I/SRO/MDU dated 14.02.2011 consequent order dated 28.03.2011 in No.57-00-047245-000-0101/INS.I/Ins.quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nithyanandam For Respondents : No representation

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the order passed by the Assistant Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation holding that the coverage of the petitioner/employer with effect from 01.11.1999 is legal and valid and that the petitioner is obliged to comply with the provisions of the Act with effect from 01.11.1999.

¶16

2.Heard Mr.R.Nithyanandam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶17

3.Despite the fact that in an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.NO.13867 of 2002, this Court had passed an order on 10.11.2010 permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the Deputy Director with a further direction https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the Deputy Director to consider the same and pass orders within eight weeks, I do not think that the remedy for the petitioner lies before the writ Court. The E.S.I.Act 1948 is a

¶18

¶19

complete code in itself. Under Section 45(A) of the E.S.I.Act 1948, the Regional Director or anyone empowered by him in his behalf is entitled to determine the amount of contributions payable in respect of the employees of a factory or establishment, which had not filed any returns or registers or records. Once an order under Section 45(A) of the Act is passed determining the contribution, the person aggrieved would have a right of an appeal to an appellate authority under Section 45-AA of the Act. They also have a right to approach the E.S.I. Court under Section 75(1) of the Act. The E.S.I. Court is also empowered to pass interim orders. As against the order passed by the E.S.I.Court, an appeal would lie to the High Court Under Section 82(2) of the Act. Thus the Act is a complete code in itself.

¶20

4.Even if on the question of coverage of an establishment, proceedings are kept pending before this Court from 2002 to till date, it would virtually defeat the objects of the Act. Therefore this writ petition is dismissed. If the respondents initiate any proceedings under Section 45(A) of the Act, it is open to the petitioner to raise all the objections at that time and work out his remedies in accordance with the provisions of the Statue. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (AS)

¶23

/ TRUE COPY /

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

To:

¶26

The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, 143, Sterling Road, Chennai-600 034.

¶27

The Assistant Director, The Sub-Regional Office(Madurai), Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 2nd West Street, K.K.Nagar, Madurai-20.

¶28

The Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madurai.

¶29

+1CC to Mr.A.Uthaman, Advocate. SR.No.35502.

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

Ssl WP(MD)No.4443 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 RP/28.10.2011/2P/5C. 11.10.2011

M/S.Dpn Spining Mills (P) Ltd. v. the Regional Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Dpn Spining Mills (P) Ltd. v. the Regional Director

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

Madavi, Vs the Deputy Superintendent

O.L. Venkatachalam Vs the District Collector

R. Manonmani, Vs the Registrar of Co-Op.

P. Thangavel, President, Vs the District Collector

S. Raghu, S/O.R.Srinivasan, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Rakkammal, Vs the District Collector