Dismissed

M/S.Sree Kaderi Ambal Mills v. Peri.Mahendran, President

Madras HC7 Mar 2017CRP(MD)/2250/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed civil revision petitions filed by the employer against the Labour Court order impleading the employee union. The court held that since ESI contributions involve both employer and employee, the union has the right to make submissions regarding coverage.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petitions challenging the impleading order are dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

M/S.Sree Kaderi Ambal Mills Vs Peri.Mahendran, President — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.03.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN CRP(MD).Nos.2250 and 2268 of 2015 and M.P(MD).Nos.1 and 1 of 2015 in both CRPs

¶6

M/s. Sree Kaderi Ambal Mills Ltd., Perattukkottai Village, Shanmuganathapuram – 630 314, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District. Rep. by its Managing Director. : Petitioner in both CRPs Vs.

¶7

1.Peri. Mahendran President, Sri Sree Kaderi Ambal Mills Textile Workers Union

¶8

2.The Joint Director, ESI Corporation (SRO), 4^th Main Road, K.K.Nagar, Madurai – 625 020

¶9

3.The Recovery Officer, ESI Corporation Limited, 4^th Main Road, K.K.Nagar, Madurai- 625 020 ..Respondents in CRP(MD).No.2250/15

¶10

1.C.Amburose President, Sri Sree Kaderi Ambal Mills National Textile Workers Union (INTUC),

¶11

2.K.Ramu 3.S.Muthu 4.Arulraj 5.S.Gnanaprakasam 6.C.Thirupathy

¶12

7.The Joint Director, ESI Corporation (SRO), https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4^th Main Road, K.K.Nagar, Madurai – 625 020

¶13

¶14

8.The Recovery Officer, ESI Corporation Limited, 4^th Main Road, K.K.Nagar, Madurai- 625 020 .. Respondents in CRP(MD).No.2268/15 Prayer in CRP(MD).No.2250 of 2015: The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order datd 27.02.2015 made in I.A.No.127 of 2013 in ESIOP No.68 of 2009 on the file of the ESI Court, Madurai.

¶15

Prayer in CRP(MD).No.2268 of 2015: The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 27.02.2015 (received on 30.04.2015) made in I.A.No.128 of 2013 in ESIOP No.68 of 2009 on the file of the ESI Court, Madurai.

¶16

For petitioner : Mr.M.Jesin Mathew For R1 : Mr.T.Ravichandran

¶17

COMMON ORDER

¶18

The ESI OP was filed in the year 2009, for quashing the coverage and demand of contribution and for refund of contribution under the ESI Act. Pending the OP, the Employees Union has filed an application to get impleaded themselves and the Court below has allowed their application to get implead themselves and contest the OP. The present revision petitions are filed, aggrieved by the order passed in the impleading petitions.

¶19

According to the Management, the impleading petitioners are not necessary parties and without adducing any valid reason to get themselves impleaded, the Labour Court has allowed the applications.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the ESI.OP.68 of 2009 was primarily filed to quash the coverage and demand of contribution and for refund of contribution wrongly remitted by it between 2003-2007. Therefore, the Management which has remitted contribution alone is an aggrieved party and not the employee or first respondent who claim himself as president of the Sri Kaderiambal Mills Textile Workers Union (INTUC). This Court is not convinced in the representation of the counsel for the petitioner. ESI contribution is from both the employer and employee and hence, both the employer and employee mandatorily pay to the Corporation for the welfare of the employees.

¶21

Here is the case, where the employer questions the coverage and demand of contribution and for refund of contribution https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ already paid which includes the contribution made by the employees. The first respondent who is representing their recognised Trade Union has every right to make submission

¶22

¶23

regarding the coverage as well as the contribution made by its members.

¶24

Therefore, I see no merits in these Revision Petitions challenging the order passed by the Labour Court in impleading the first respondent and therefore, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

The Presiding Officer, ESI Court, Madurai.

¶31

+2ccs to Mr.M.E.Ilango, Advocate, SR.Nos.13291, 13290 +One cc to Mr.T.Ravichandran, Advocate, SR.No.13139

¶32

trp

¶33

RL/5C/3P/SKN/RSK/23.3.2017

¶34

CRP(MD).Nos.2250 and 2268 of 2015 and M.P(MD).Nos.1 and 1 of 2015 in both CRPs

¶35

07.03.2017

¶36

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

M/S.Sree Kaderi Ambal Mills v. Peri.Mahendran, President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Sree Kaderi Ambal Mills v. Peri.Mahendran, President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Ilamurugan Vs Vanjsha, D/O.Ilamurugu

Esakkimuthu Vs the Inspector of Police

Annavi Vs Thangarasu

Muthukumar @ Muthaiah, Vs State Rep.by

P.Gurusamy, Vs J.Ilangovan,S/O.Jeyaram

Rajesh, Vs State, Rep. by