Dismissed

Employees State Insurance Corporation, v. M/s. The Co-operative Press Ltd.

Telangana HC14 Mar 2011CMA/4333/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an Employees Insurance Court order upholding a claim for contributions on limitation grounds. The court held that under Section 77(1A) Explanation-B, the cause of action arises when the claim is made, and the claim was timely. The appeal was dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Applications for setting aside the Tribunal order and declaring non-liability were not allowed, but without costs.

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

C.M.A.No.4333 of 2004

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against order passed in E.I.Case No.24 of 2000 dated 17.11.2003 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad.

¶5

The appellant is the 1^st respondent and the 1^st respondent is the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent is the 2^nd respondent in the said E.I.Case. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as they are arrayed in the petition here afterwards.

¶6

The petitioner filed the petition under Section 75(1)(g) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, ‘the Act’) with a prayer to set aside order passed by the 2^nd respondent bearing No.52.Q/0395-83 dated 11.08.1999 and consequently to declare that the petitioner would not be liable to pay any amounts towards necessary contributions for its employees for the period from 03.08.1980 to 31.12.1986.

¶7

The facts of the case are narrated by the Tribunal and there is no reason to reiterate the same.

¶8

The Tribunal framed issues for trial on the basis of material available as follows.

¶9

1. Whether the respondent is justified in passing the order dated 11.8.1999 under Section 45G of the ESI Act?

¶10

2. Whether the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity before passing the order?

¶11

3. Whether the petitioner is not liable to pay any contribution as demanded in the above order dated 11.8.1997?

¶12

4. To what relief?

¶13

On behalf of the petitioner, its accountants were examined as PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.19. On behalf of the respondents, Retired Deputy Director of ESI Corporation and the Inspector (Legal), Regional Office, Hyderabad were examined as RWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.32.

¶14

Examining the material on record, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the claim made by the 1^st respondent was beyond the period of limitation provided under Section 77(1A) of the Act.

¶15

It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant/respondent that as provided under Section 75 and Section 1-6 of the Act, the claim was made within time and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the material properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence the order passed by it is to be set aside.

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Section 77 (1A) of the Act is the only provision in the Act, which provides for making necessary claim for making necessary contributions and Section 1-6 and Section 75 of the Act are not relevant herein.

¶17

Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to whether the claim was made by the 1^st respondent in time and the order passed by the Tribunal is proper or whether it is sustainable or not.

¶18

Section 77 of the Act contemplates that the proceedings before the Employees’ Insurance Court shall be commenced by an application and every such application shall be made within a period of three years, from the date on which the cause of action arose. Here, we are concerned with the provisions of 77(1A) Explanation-B, which contemplates that the cause of action in respect of a claim by the Corporation for recovering contributions (including interest and damages) from the principal employer shall be deemed to have arisen on the date on which such claim is made by the

¶19

Corporation for the first time.

¶20

Therefore, the claim should have been made within five years from the date when the corresponding cause of action arose. Admittedly, the claim was made against the employer within the stipulated period from the date of arising of the cause of action to do so.

¶21

The Tribunal properly examined the matter and there is no reason to interfere with the order.

¶22

In the result, the appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any costs.

¶23

_________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J

¶24

14^th March, 2011

¶25

PNV

Employees State Insurance Corporation, v. M/s. The Co-operative Press Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employees State Insurance Corporation, v. M/s. The Co-operative Press Ltd.

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

J. Narasimha Vs The Union of India

M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs Union of India

M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Vs Union of India

Killamsetty Venkataramana Vs Indian Bank

Peddiboyina Nagaiah Vs The Union of India

Chalasani Rama Priya Devi Vs Vijaya Mohana Ratnakara Rai Parvataneni