Dismissed

The Regional Director v. All Rajasthan Cottage Industri

Rajasthan HC27 Jan 2015CMA/3418/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge appeal concerns the recovery of contributions under the ESI Act. The Industrial Tribunal previously dismissed the claim due to limitation under Section 77. The appellant sought to rely on a 2010 amendment to Section 91A which the court rejected as irrelevant to the 2004 facts. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Jaipur was dismissed.

The Regional Director Vs All Rajasthan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

1 CMA No. 3418/2008

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

The Regional Director Vs. All Rajasthan Cottage Industries & Anr. S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3418/ 2008

¶5

Date of Judgm ent : : : 27.01.2015

¶6

P R E S E N T

¶7

HON ' BLE MR. JUSTI CE ATUL KUMAR JAI N

¶8

Mr. Ankur Saxena, for Dr. A.S. Khangarot, for the appellant. Mr. SR Surana, Sr. Advocate with

¶9

Mr. KK Chhawal, for the respondents.

¶10

In this matter Section 77 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 is relevant which reads as under: -

¶11

Sect ion 7 7 - Com m en cem en t of pr oceedin gs

¶12

(1) The proceedings before an Employees' Insurance Court shall be com menced by application.

¶13

1 [ (1A) Every such application shall be made within a period of three years from the date on which the cause of action arose.

¶14

Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section,--

¶15

(a) the cause of action in respect of a claim for benefit shall not be deemed to arise unless the insured person or in the case of dependants' benefit, the dependants of the insured person claims or claim that benefit in accordance with the regulations made in that behalf within a period twelve months after the claim became due or within such further period as the Employees' Insurance

¶16

2 CMA No. 3418/2008

¶17

Court may allow on grounds which appear to it to be reasonable;

¶18

2 [ ( b) t h e cau se of act ion in r espect of a claim by t h e Cor por at ion for r ecov er in g con t r ibu t ion s ( in clu din g in t er est an d dam ages) fr om t h e pr in cipal em ploy er sh all be deem ed t o h av e ar isen on t h e dat e on w h ich su ch claim is m ade by t h e Cor por at ion for t h e fir st t im e:

¶19

Provided that no claim shall be made by the Corporation after five years of the period to which the claim relates;

¶20

(c) the cause of action in respect of a claim by the principal employer for recovering contributions from an imm ediate employer shall not be deemed to arise till the date by which the evidence of contributions having been paid is due to be received by the Corporation under the regulations.] ]

¶21

(2) Every such application shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars and shall be accompanied by such fee, if any, as may be prescribed by rules made by the State Government in consultation with the Corporation.

¶22

On the basis of the proviso to Section 77 (1A) Explanation

¶23

(b), the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur on 27.08.2004 in ESI Application No.7/ 1993 titled as All Rajasthan Cottage Industries, Jorawar Singh Gate, Amer Road, Jaipur Vs. Regional Director,Em ployees State Insurance Corporation, Jaipur decided an application filed under Section 75 (1) (g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and has disallowed the claim of the appellant Corporation for Contribution for the period of

¶24

3 CMA No. 3418/2008

¶25

31.01.1986 to 27.09.1989 because the demand was placed for the period of 31.01.1986 to 31.03.1992 on 27.09.1994 but as per the proviso (supra) no claim could have been made by the ESI Corporation after five years of the period to which the claim relates and thus the Limitation bars the claim of a period earlier than 27.09.1989.

¶26

In this appeal appellant the ESI Corporation has sought help from the amendment made in Section 91A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 but I am convinced that Section 91A of the Act of 1948 is not at all relevant for us to decide the matter in controversy and further more the alleged amendment was made in the ESI Act 1948 only in the year 2010 while the present controversy relates to the decision dated 27.08.2004 of ESI Court and Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur and so the amendment, referred to, by the appellant does not affect the decision of the present appeal and I am further to say that no other point has been raised in this appeal so the appeal filed by the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Jaipur is bereft of any force which is hereby dismissed.

¶27

Copy of this order be sent to the ESI Court & Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur.

¶28

( ATUL KUMAR JAI N) ,J

¶29

sunita

¶30

4 CMA No. 3418/2008

¶31

“ All cor r ect ion s m ade in t h e j u dgm en t / or der h ave been in cor por at ed in t h e j u dgm en t / or der bein g em ailed.”

¶32

su n it a/ Jr . P.A.

The Regional Director v. All Rajasthan Cottage Industri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Regional Director v. All Rajasthan Cottage Industri

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

State of Raj and Another Vs M/S Chandi and Company

Om Prakash Sharma Vs Prithvi Singh

Gangadhar and Others Vs Kanhiya Lal

Yashoda Vs Balveer

State of Raj and Ors. Vs M/Se Bhawan Va Path Nirman Boh

Smt Ranjana Devi Vs Mahendra Singh