Dismissed

Ganesh Shiksha Samiti v. Regional Director EMPLOYEEandORS

Rajasthan HC12 May 2015CW/6249/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Ganesh Shiksha Samiti against an ESI Court order directing 25% deposit. The Court refused to entertain financial hardship arguments due to lack of supporting evidence in the waiver application and affirmed the burden of proof lies with the applicant. Petitioner allowed to approach the ESI Court for a reasoned order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Liberty granted to complainant to file further application to ESI Court for waiver of 25% deposit on grounds of financial hardship, which the ESI Court must decide within three mon

Ganesh Shiksha Samiti Vs Regional Director… — Company and Corporate | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

¶3

ORDER

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6249/2015
Ganesh Shiksha Samiti v. Regional Director,
Employee State Insurance Corporation & Ors

¶5

Date of Order : 12.5.2015

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶7

Mr.Suresh Pareek Sr. Advocate with
Mr. S.L Sharma for the petitioner Samiti

¶8

The petitioner Samiti is aggrieved of
the order dated 10.4.2015 passed by the
Employee State Insurance Court, Jaipur
(hereinafter 'the ESI Court') whereby on an
application filed under section 75(2)(b)of
the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948
(hereinafter 'the Act of 1948') by the
petitioner Samiti seeking waiver of pre-
deposit of 50% of the amount determined by
the Dy. Director, ESI Court under his order
dated 30.12.2014 has been only partly allowed
the application and directed deposit of 25%
of the amount determined.

¶9

I have perused the impugned order
dated 10.4.2015 and heard counsel for the
petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Suresh Pareek Sr. Advocate with

¶11

¶12

Mr. S.L Sharma submitted that the petitioner
Samiti could not bring to the notice of the
ESI Court its financial hardship were it
required to deposit even of 25% of the amount
determined by the Office of the Regional
Director, ESI. It has been submitted that in
the event the petitioner Samiti were required
to deposit 25% of the amount determined it
would suffer great financial hardships and
its very functioning to the prejudice of its
members jeopardized. It has also been
submitted that the impugned order dated
10.4.2015 is a non-speaking and hence also
liable to be set aside on this ground.

¶13

Heard. Considered.

¶14

I am however not inclined to

¶15

entertain the arguments of Sr. Counsel on
account of financial hardships of the
petitioner Samiti. This aspect of the matter
is not reflected in the application filed
under section 75(2)(b) of the Act of 1948 nor
it has been consequently addressed or
considered by the ESI Court. The burden to
set up a case for waiver under section 75(2)
(b) of the Act of 1948 is on the applicant.
That does not appear to have thus far been

¶16

¶17

discharged.

¶18

I therefore, find no force in the
petition. It is dismissed.

¶19

The petitioner Samiti however shall
be at liberty to move a further application
before the ESI Court bringing to its notice
the financial hardships, difficulties which
would be suffered by the petitioner Samiti in
the event the amount of 25% as directed under
order dated 10.4.2015 were to be deposited by
the petitioner Samiti. In the event of such
further application being filed, the ESI
Court is directed to address it afresh and
decide it in accordance with law within a
period of three months by a reasoned and
speaking order without in any manner being
influenced by the liberty granted by this
Court.

¶20

The writ petition stands disposed of
accordingly.

¶21

(ALOK SHARMA), J

¶22

Sharma NK

¶23

“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been
incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”

¶24

NK Sharma, Sr.P.A

Ganesh Shiksha Samiti v. Regional Director EMPLOYEEandORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Shiksha Samiti v. Regional Director EMPLOYEEandORS

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

Pavan Kumar Sharma Vs K K Pathak and Others

M/S Godrej Agrovet Ltd. Vs Shri Ramdev Singh andORS

Raj Panchayati Raj Karamchari Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Avdesh Sharma Vs Commissioner Department andORS

Mukesh Kumar Sharma andANR Vs State Education Departmentors

Sukhpreet Kaur Vs Add Chief Secretary Ors.