Dismissed

M/S.Vishwa Pipe Industries Pvt. Limited v. Employees State Insurance Corporation

Telangana HC29 Mar 2022CRP/222/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Chairman Industrial Tribunal's order. The Court found no material on record proving temporary closure of the petitioner's unit in 2013, noting evidence of continued operations and license surrender in 2017.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S.Vishwa Pipe Industries Pvt. Limited Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

.1dr

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA^REDDY

¶6

ctvt L REVISION PETITION NO:.222 OF²⁰¹⁹

¶7

Petition Undeir Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia^{against the order} dated'18-01-2019 in l.A. No. 19 of 2019^{in EIC.SR.No.2607ol 2018on the file} of the Court of the Hon'ble Employees^{lnsurance Court and Chairman} lndustrial Tribunal -l at Chandravihar, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/S.VISHWA PIPE INDUSTRIES PVT LIMITED, sY. NO.22BlU,2 28 lE,230^I A,230 I AA,228l A,228^{I AA,228lEE,230lE,203lEE,} SAMPANABOLE VILLAGE, JAGANGUDA,SAIUEERPET.^{R.R.DIST-500078 rept} by its Director. Sri M. Goverdhan Reddy S/o.^{M.Shivareddy age-63yearsR:/O'1-} 1i-2561Ct24, Plot No.24, Gagan Vihar Colony, Begumpet,^Hyderabad.l6 (EST.CODE. NO. 5200-034028-0205)

¶10

... REVISION PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

EIUPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,,^{REPT.BY.THE DEPUTY} DIRECTOR, .# 5.9-23,HILL FORT ROAD,^{HYDERABAD-63.T.S}

¶13

,..RESPONDENT

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High Court may be} pleased may be pleased to stay all recovery^{proceedings againstthe order} under section 45A of the esi act^{1948 vide proceedings No.TS/lNS-11/52-} 00-034028-0205 dated.29l1 Ot2O1a^{for the period 01112t201bto 31l11l2o18} for Rs.8,36,550/- of the respondent^{pending disposalof the mainappeal.}

IA NO:1 OF 21

Between:

EMPLOYEES STATE I NSURANCE-CORPORATION,, REPT.BY.THE DEPUTY DTRECTOR, .# 5-9-23,HtLL FORT ROAD, HYbEnneno_oe.r.s

¶21

And

¶22

M/S.VISHWA PIPE INDUSTRIES PVT LIMITED iY,Ng??glu.?^{28/E,230 t A,23o t a4?2]} ?:42p^t A^,228 t EE,23o t E.203/EE, SAMPANABOLE VILLAGE,. JAGANGUDA,SAVTENPCT. N.N.OrSr.--SiOOTB rEPt bY its-Director. sri M. Goverdhan.Reddy s/o. rvr.snivareooy ;9"--63'vJi" i{oli-rrNO. 256/c124, PIot No.24. Gaoan Vihar c'orony, 5200-034028-O2bil^' eesu;[et, r:ryoEi"Lialid'iebrEooe.

¶23

Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated oit02l2o19 in cRp.No.222 of 2019 and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PATIL SHANKAR RAO

¶25

Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI pASHAM SRINIVASULU

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶28

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.222 OF 2019

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order dated 18.0i.20 19, passed in I.A.No.19 of 2019 in EiC.SR.No.26O7 of 2018, on the file of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman Industrial Tribunal-1, at Hyderabad.

¶31

For sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as the petitioner and respondent.

¶32

The petitioner establishment is a pipe industry, covered under Employees State Insurance Corporation Act (for short 'ESI Act'). On the date of coverage, the petitioner was paying contributions regularly, but in due course, as there was no work, the petitioner company was temporarily closed from 30.11.2013 and the same was informed to the respondent corporation as per the representation dated 20.12.2013. Later, the respondent, as per letter dated 16.08.2018, directed the petitioner to appear on 19. 10.2018 but the petitioner could not

¶33

AVR.J cRP 222 2019

¶34

Page 2 of 5

¶35

appear either^{on19.10.2018or on 29.10.2018 i.e' on the next} date. Consequently, the^{respondentauthoritieshave passed al} ex-parte order.

¶36

Aggrieved by the^{sarne, the petitioner has filed} I.A.No.19 of 2019^{under Section 75(2b) of the ESI Act to waive or} reduce the amount^{deposited against the orders under Section} 45(A) of ESI Act^{dated29.1O.2018 for anamount of} Rs.8,36,550/-.TheCourtbelowoncarefulanalysisofthefacts and circumstances^{of the case, held that pima-faciemateria-l} shows that there^{is no proof to the effect that the companywas} closed temporarily^{on 30.11.2013 more particularlyin view of the} fact that the^{lecenseof the factory was surrenderedon} 3O.12.2Ot7 and^{the remaining documents filed by the petitioner} including the annual^{reportof the company from 2073 to 2016,} commercial^{Tax Returns for the year 2Ol7 along with Income Tax} Returns and surrender^{of license on 30.12.2017 shows that there} is no proof about^{temporary closure of the petitioner's company} on 30.1 l.2oL3 and^{accordingly,directed the petitioner to deposit} 3Oo/o of the^{amount instead of 5O% as demandedby the} respondent^{ESI CorPoration.}

¶37

AVR,J cRP_222²⁰¹⁹

¶38

Page 3 of⁵

¶39

5 Feeling aggrieved^{by the said orders, this CRP is filed'}

¶40

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner contended that the} ex-parte order^{is passedon 29'10'2018, no opportunity was given} to the petitioner^{to show that the unit was temporarilyclosed'} electricity bills and^{the surrender of factory license show the same} and the order impugned^{is liable to be set aside'}

¶41

Per contra,^{learnedstanding counsel appearingfor the} respondent strenuouslv^{contendsthat there is no proof to the} effect that the^{petitioner unit was closed temporarily in the year} 2013andontheotherhand,thedocumentsthatindicatedinthe order impugned^{i'e.surrender oflicenceon13'L2'2017} ' submission of^{annual reportof the company for the period from} 2ol3to2o16andCommercialTaxReturnsfortheyear2olT along with Income^{Tax Returns would show that the petitioner} unit was^{working ti1l the date of surrender of license on} 3o.T2.2oLTandthereisnoirregularityintheorderimpugned.

¶42

I have^{given my thoughtfulconsideration to the entire} material available^{on record' The Court below' while considering} the request^{of the petitioner modified the order directingthe}

¶43

AVR,J cRP 222 2019

¶44

Page 4 of 5

¶45

petitioner to deposit 307o instead of 50% as demanded by^the respondent on or before 28.O1.2019.

¶46

In this context, it is apt to refer the Division Bench decision of this Court in CMA No.645 ol 2018. In identical facts a Divisiort Bench of this Court clearly held that^as the^{appealis filed} only against the Interim Application and the tribunal has^already given concession by reducing the alleged disputed amount from 50o/o to 30%, there are no^grounds to interfere with the said orders of the tribunal.

¶47

In the present case a1so, on a carefui perusal of the entire material available on record, it is found that the petitioner has not filed any material before the trial Court or before this Court to shou' that the petitioner unit was temporarily closed on 30.11.2013. Contrary to that, the material on record shows that the petitioner has surrendered licence to the Inspector of Factories, Medchai-Malkajgiri Circle on 30.12.2017. The petitioner has also filed Income Tax Returns, Commercial Tax Returns for the^years 2017-17 and also submitted annual returns of the company from 2Ol3 to 2016.

AVR,J cRP -22?^?019

Page 5^{of 5}

1 1'^{Therefore, viewed from any angle' the contentionof the} petitioner^{that the unit was temporarily closed on 3O'11'2013is} not acceptable^{at this stage'I find no ground to interfere with the} said order.^{Thus, for the reasons statedabove'this Court finds} no reason^{tointerfere with the order impugnedand itis} sustainable'

¶52

L2. In^{the result' this CRP is dismissed confirmingthe} orderdatedlS.ol.2olg,passedinI'A.No.19of2oI9in EIC.SR.No.2^{607 of 2018' on the file of the Employees Insurance} Court^{and Chairman IndustrialTribunal-l'at Hyderabad' In the} facts and^{circumstancesof the case' the parties shall bear their} respective^{costs. Miscellaneouspetitions' if any' pending'in this} CRP, shall^{stand closed'}

¶53

T,KRISHNA KUMAR ASSISTANT 'O/.^REG TRAR

¶54

//TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER

¶55

To,

¶56

1 The Employees^{lnsurance Court and ChairmanlndustrialTribunal - I at} Chandrivitiar,^HYderabad'

¶57