Remanded

E S I C Chandigarh v. M/S Nova Security Services P Ltd. and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2009FAO/516/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against an ESI Court order allowing an interim application under CPC Order 39 rules and Section 151 was allowed. The High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to decide the preliminary objection regarding Section 75(2B) of the ESI Act compliance.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 13.4.2007 set aside; matter remanded to ESI Court, Chandigarh to decide preliminary objection regarding Section 75(2B) compliance of the Act.

E S I C Chandigarh Vs M/S Nova… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

FAO No.516 of 2007

¶2

-1 -

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.516 of 2007

¶5

Date of Decision : 22.5.2009

¶6

Employees State Insurance Corporation

¶7

..Appellant.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M/s Nova Security Service Private Limited and another

¶10

..Respondent.

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶12

Present: Mr.B.S.Bhatia, Advocate for appellant.

¶13

Mr.A.C.Arya, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶14

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(ORAL)

¶15

This appeal has been filed by the State Insurance Corporation (for short the Corporation') against the order dated 13.4.2007 passed by Employees' State Insurance Court whereby an application filed by the respondent No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC') has been allowed.

¶16

The first and foremost argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of Section 75(2B) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ( for short `the Act'), no matter which is in dispute between a principal employer and the Corporation in respect of any contribution or any other dues shall be raised by the principal employer in the Employees' State Insurance Court, unless he has deposited with the

¶17

FAO No.516 of 2007 -2 -

¶18

Court fifty percent of the amount due from him as claimed by the Corporation, which can be waived of or reduced by the Court for the reasons to be recorded in writing. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that a preliminary objection was raised before the Court below by the Corporation that without compliance of Section 75(2B) of the Act, proceedings initiated under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC are not maintainable but the said objection was not decided. Learned counsel for the respondent has very fairly stated at the bar that aforesaid objection was actually not decided by the Court below.

¶19

Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondent submits that impugned order dated 13.4.2007 may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Court below to decide the preliminary Objection raised by counsel for the Corporation in respect of compliance of Section 75(2B) of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has no objection in this regard.

¶20

In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. Order dated 13.4.2007 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the ESI Court, Chandigarh for decision afresh by taking into consideration the preliminary objection raised by the Corporation.

¶21

The parties are directed to appear before the ESI Court on

¶22

10.6.2009.

¶23

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

¶24

22.5.2009 Meenu

E S I C Chandigarh v. M/S Nova Security Services P Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E S I C Chandigarh v. M/S Nova Security Services P Ltd. and Anr.

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

Pritu Vs Stat Eo of Haryana and Ors.

Surinder Singh Vs Gurmeet Kaur and Anr.

S. Bala Subramanian Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Singh and Ors. Vs Collector, Land Acquisition and Anr.

Milkhi Ram Vs P.S.E.B. and Ors.

Milkhi Ram Vs P.S.E.B. and Others