Dismissed

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Maninder Singh and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC17 May 2013CRM-A/222/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appeal by the ESI Corporation against acquittal was dismissed. The Court held that the trial Court was not without jurisdiction to consider whether the establishment fell under the definition of factory as a sine qua non for prosecution. Since the dispute regarding contribution is maintainable only after depositing 50% under Section 75(2B), and prosecution is not valid during pendency when the management does not fall under the definition of factory, the Acquisition Court's well-reasoned acquittal stands.

What the court decided

AI extract

Employees State Insurance Corporatio… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM-A-222-MA of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-A-222-MA of 2011 (O&M). Date of decision: May 17, 2013.

¶4

Employees State Insurance Corporation

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Maninder Singh and another

¶8

..... Respondents

¶9

*** * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI**

¶10

PRESENT Mr.B.S.Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶12

The Employees State Insurance Corporation aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents, has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C., with application for leave to file said appeal.

¶13

The petitioner-corporation had filed a complaint under Section 85 (a) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') against the respondents on the ground that return of contribution to the appellant under Section 39, 40 & 43 of the Act for a period from October 2000 to March 2001 have not been submitted and as such an offence punishable under Section 85 (a) of the Act had been committed by the respondents. The trial Court has acquitted the respondents, inter alia, on the following grounds: -

¶14

(i) The respondent firm does not fall within the

¶15

¶16

CRM-A-222-MA of 2011 (O&M)

¶17

definition of factory under Section 2 (12) of the Act and

¶18

(ii) that the order dated 29.4.1998, requiring the respondents to deposit contribution for the wages for the period 2000-2001 is pending adjudication under Section 75 of the Act.

¶19

Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the acquittal order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable as the trial Court did not have any jurisdiction to consider whether the establishment of the respondents fall under the definition of factory under Section 2 (12) of the Act.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the scheme of the Act.

¶21

Whether a dispute between employer and corporation regarding the contribution is to be decided by the Employees Insurance Court under Section 75 of the Act. The adjudication of a dispute and claim falls under Chapter VI of the Act. Subject matter of the dispute between employer and corporation in respect of any contribution or any other dues can be raised by the employer in the Employees Insurance Court after depositing 50 per cent of the amount due as claimed by the corporation as per Section 75 (2B) of the Act. During pendency of the dispute regarding contribution before adjudicatory authority, the ESI had opted to launch prosecution against the respondents. The sine qua non for requiring contribution under the ESI Act is that principal-employer

¶22

¶23

CRM-A-222-MA of 2011 (O&M)

¶24

should fall in the definition of factory. As per Section 2 (12) of the Act a factory means any premises wherein 10 or more persons are employed for manufacturing process. During pendency of a dispute before adjudicatory authority the complaint is not maintainable. Moreover, when management of the employer does not fall under the definition of factory, the launching of prosecution is not valid. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana has given fair and adequate reasons for acquitting the respondents.

¶25

No ground is made out to interfere in the well

reasoned order.

Dismissed.

(M.M.S. BEDI)

May 17, 2013. JUDGE rka

¶30

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Maninder Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Maninder Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Rohini Jain and Others Vs State of Punjab

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Pavneet Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Balwan Vs State of Haryana