Allowed

The Principal v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC3 Feb 2020WP(MD)/1221/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging ESI demand for contribution. Court granted 18 monthly installments for the disputed amount regarding current employees and directed an enquiry for the amount attributed to 19 employees who have since left the school.

What did the court decide?

Directed to pay Rs. 1 lakh per month for 18 months; directed third respondent to conduct enquiry on contribution for 19 employees who left.

The Principal Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.1221 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.02.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA W.P(MD)No.1221 of 2020 and WMP(MD)Nos.992 and 993 of 2020

¶5

The Principal Amala Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Thuckalay – 629 175, Kanyakumari District. .. Petitioner Vs.

¶6

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Labour & Employment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2.The Employees State Insurance Corporation, rep.by its Regional Director, No.143, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. 3.The Deputy Director/ Authorised Officer, Sub Regional Office, ESI Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, ESIC Complex, Salai Street, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli – 627 003. ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned orders issued by the 3rd Respondent Deputy Director in No.66000410510001302/INS-I/SRO/TLI dated 01-07-2019 and the consequential impugned Letter No.66-00041051-000-1302/45A/SRO/TLI/550/19/315/19 dated 26-12-2019 quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy For R1 : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi Special Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For R2 & R3 : Mr.N.Dilipkumar

¶9

1/3

¶10

W.P(MD)No.1221 of 2020

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Challenging the order passed under Section 45-A of the ESI Act, 1948 with regard to the payment of ESI contribution by the petitioner, this writ petition is filed. Without going into the merits of the case, the following order is passed.

¶13

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the demand is for a sum of Rs.22,31,337/- for the period from August 2014 to August 2018. But the contention of the petitioner is that, of the total 73 employees, 19 of the employees are already left and the contribution towards them would be approximately Rs.4,35,784/-. The petitioner is willing to pay the balance, excluding the above said sum, which comes approximately around Rs.18 lakhs in monthly installments.

¶14

3.Considering the fact that in several matters, ESI demands have been allowed to be paid in monthly installments for the educational institutions, this Court is of the view that 18 installments may be granted for the petitioner to pay the ESI contribution. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.1 lakh per month for 18 months. The first installment shall commence from the 1^st of March, 2020 and continue to pay the remaining installments on every first day of succeeding calendar month. So far as the contribution which has been withheld by the petitioner with respect to the 19 employees who are alleged to have been left, the third respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry on submission of relevant documents in that regard and pass a fresh assessment order. However, it is made clear that the payment of Rs.18 lakhs in 18 installments is not the final amount, it is subject to the outcome of the enquiry, which is directed as above.

¶15

4.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, WMP(MD)Nos.992 and 993 of 2020 are closed.

¶16

// True Copy //

¶17

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶18

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

¶19

2/3

¶20

W.P(MD)No.1221 of 2020

¶21

mj To

¶22

The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Labour & Employment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

¶23

+1 CC to MR.T.CIBI CHAKRABORTHY, Advocate ( SR-4536[F] dated 04/02/2020 )

¶24

+1 CC to MR.N.DILIP KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-4660[F] dated 04/02/2020 )

¶25

W.P(MD)No.1221 of 2020 03.02.2020

¶26

KM/(12.02.2020) 3P 4C

¶27

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

¶28

3/3

The Principal v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

Hema Janani Vs The Regional Passport Authority

M.Sivan Vs the District Collector

A.K.M.Alla Pitchai Vs The commissioner

G.Thalapathi Vs The District Collector

Tvl. Pcs Polyfils P Ltd., Vs the Asst. Commissioner (St)(Fac)

M/s.Sri Aravindar Engineering College Vs The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner