Dismissed

M/s.Citec Engineering India v. The Reginal Director

Madras HC16 Feb 2022WP/1008/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition after the petitioner withdrew it with liberty to approach the authority under Section 75 of the ESI Act. The Court directed the recovery authorities to follow statutory provisions and avoid coercive tactics pending the alternative remedy.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty granted to file application under Section 75 of ESI Act.

M/s.Citec Engineering India Vs The Reginal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.02.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶2

W.P. No. 1008 of 2017 and W.M.P. No. 986 of 2017 M/s. CITEC Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Authorized Signatory Bastin Fernando Having office at SKCL, Central Square, IV Floor B-19, 20 & 21, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate CIPET Road, Guindy Chennai – 600 032. ...Petitioner -vs1. Regional Director Employees' State Insurance Corporation Regional Office, 143, Panchdeep Bhawan, Sterling Road, Chennai – 600 034. 2. The Deputy Director ESI Corporation Regional Office, 143, Panchdeep Bhawan, Sterling Road, Chennai – 600 034. 3. The Assistant Director ESI Corporation Regional Office, 143, Panchdeep Bhawan, Sterling Road, Chennai – 600 034. 4. Recovery Officer Employees' State Insurance Corporation Panchdeep Bhawan, 143, Sterling Road Chennai – 600 034. ...Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by

¶3

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

¶4

the Second Respondent in and by his proceedings bearing No. TN/Ins.V/51-00-111612-000-1007 dated 01.04.2016 and consequently call for recovery order dated 08.11.2016, bearing No. TN/RECY/CP-1/51001116120001007/CCR-76626, passed by the Fourth Respondent and quash the same.

¶5

For Petitioner : Mr. V.Meenakshisundaram For Respondents : Mr. A.K.Raja For M/s. T.N.C.Kaushik, Standing Counsel

¶6

O R D E R

¶7

Heard Mr. V.Meenakshisundaram, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A.K.Raja, Learned Counsel for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶8

`2. When it is pointed out by Learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order by way of an application under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to avail the same and he has made an endorsement in the Court record to that effect. It is made clear that for the purpose of reckoning limitation for availing the aforesaid remedy, the period from the date of filing of the Writ Petition, viz., 10.01.2017, till the date on which certified copy of this order is made ready by the Registry, shall be excluded.

¶9

It is needless to add here that the Petitioner is not precluded from seeking any interim order in the said application. In response to the contention raised by Learned Counsel for Petitioner that the Respondents would proceed against the Petitioner in the interregnum, it shall be incumbent upon the concerned authorities to abide by the relevant statutory provisions as highlighted by this Court in V.Naaharaj -vs- Recovery Officer, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Salem (Order dated 08.10.2021 in W.P. No. 34525 of 2012) while taking any consequential action for recovery and shall not resort to any high-handed or coercive tactics in contravention of law.

¶10

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

¶11

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting such liberty. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶12

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Digit)

¶13

//True Copy//

¶14

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶15

Maya

¶16

¶17

Regional Director Employees' State Insurance Corporation Regional Office 143, Panchdeep Bhawan, Sterling Road, Chennai – 600 034. 2. The Deputy Director ESI Corporation Regional Office 143, Panchdeep Bhawan, Sterling Road, Chennai – 600 034. 3. The Assistant Director ESI Corporation Regional Office 143, Panchdeep Bhawan, Sterling Road, Chennai – 600 034. 4. Recovery Officer Employees' State Insurance Corporation PanchdeepBhawan 143, Sterling Road Chennai – 600 034.

¶18

Copy To: The Section Officer, E.R Section, High Court, Madras. (With a direction to return the original copy of the impugned order after retaining copy of the same) +2cc to M/s.V.Meenkashisundaram, Advocate, Sr.NO.10162 +1cc to Mr.TNC.Kaushik, Advocate, Sr.No.9982 W.P. No. 1008 of 2017 SRA(CO) KKV/11/03/2022

¶19

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

M/s.Citec Engineering India v. The Reginal Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Citec Engineering India v. The Reginal Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management Vs The Special Deputy

N.Shanmugam, Vs The Management, rep.by its

R.Vanitha Vs The Secretary to the Government

The Zonal Officer, Vs Joint Commissioner of Labour

Door Sabha Nigam Limited, Vs The Assistant Provident Fund

M.Sivagami, Vs The District Colleector