Appeal against an ESI contribution determination order under Section 45A of the ESI Act. The appellant match manufacturer claimed fewer than 10 employees made the Act inapplicable; the High Court found adequate opportunity had been given, liability admitted in writing, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the Tribunal's order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.A(MD)No.1400 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 08.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
C.M.A(MD)No.1400 of 2012
M/s.Subbiah Match Works, Through its Sole Proprietor, R.Ananthakrishnan, No.825, East Railway Station, Rajapalayam-625 117.
... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
The Employees State Insurance Corporation, No.1-B, Old Post Office Street, Thallakulam, Madurai-2, Through its Deputy Regional Director ... Respondent / Respondent
Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82(2) of Employees State Insurance Act against the fair and decreetal order dated 15.12.2011 passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.8 of 1999 on the file of the E.S.I Court (Labour Court) Judge, Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Vinoth For Respondent : Mr.C.Karthick
C.M.A(MD)No.1400 of 2012
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred as against the order passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.8 of 1999 on the file of the ESI Court (Labour Court), Madurai wherein the appellant herein has filed the original petition challenging the order passed under Section 45 A of the Act dated 13.09.2006.
C.M.A(MD)No.1400 of 2012
code number to the appellant. The appellant was not served with the copy of the report. Since only less than 10 employees were working, ESI Act was not applicable to the appellant. The appellant received another notice in C 18 on adhoc basis dated 26.12.1995 from the respondent stating that there is an arrears of contribution of Rs.25,562/- for the period from 23.12.1994 to 30.11.1995. The appellant was called upon to attend the personal hearing and the appellant appeared and the matter was adjourned for some hearings. The appellant gave a written statement stating that they would pay the contribution on or before 30.04.1996 on the basis of actual wages without knowing the consequences. Later, the appellant did not receive any notice regarding the claim for contribution for the period from 23.12.1994 to 30.11.1995. Thereafter, the order passed under Section 45 A of the ESI Act holding that the petitioner is liable to pay contribution of Rs.25,562/-. The appellant did not employ more than 10 persons at any time. The ESI Inspector inspected the appellant match factory on 14.09.1998 and verified the attendance register. Since ESI Act is not applicable to the appellant, there is no contribution payable to the respondent. Therefore, the order of the respondent is illegal and the inspection report is not binding on the appellant and the order passed by
C.M.A(MD)No.1400 of 2012
the respondent under Section 45 A of the ESI Act is liable to be set aside.
C.M.A(MD)No.1400 of 2012
to defend their case. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal is correct.
C.M.A(MD)No.1400 of 2012
of admitting the appeal, this Court framed the following substantial question of law.
“Whether in law the Court below is right in accepting the statement made by the respondent under Section 45(A) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 that 25 workers were doing work without disclosing their names”
C.M.A(MD)No.1400 of 2012
hearing both sides and analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal had dismissed the petition.
C.M.A(MD)No.1400 of 2012
consequences. Therefore, from the above, it is clear that the appellant admitted his liability and filed written statement before the authority. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that no opportunity was given to the appellant is not acceptable one. The Tribunal has also in its order elaborately discussed about the evidence adduced on both sides and passed reasoned order. Therefore, the court below is right in accepting the statement made by the respondent under Section 45-A of the ESI Act, 1948 that 25 workers were doing work. Thus, the substantial question of law is answered. Therefore, on a careful perusal of the order of the Tribunal and in view of the answer of the substantial question of law, there is no infirmity or perverse found in the order of the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the Tribunal made in E.S.I.O.P.No.8 of 1999. No costs.
08.02.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes rmi
8/10
C.M.A(MD)No.1400 of 2012
To
C.M.A(MD)No.1400 of 2012
P. DHANABAL, J.
rmi
C.M.A(MD)No.1400 of 2012
08.02.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the ESI Court was right in accepting the Section 45(A) statement that 25 workers were employed without disclosing their names, given the appellant's claim that only 6-7 persons worked in the e
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s.Subbiah Match Works, Through its Sole Proprietor, R.Ananthakrishnan
The Employees State Insurance Corporation, Through its Deputy Regional Director
P. Dhanabal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
