Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Gopi Chand Textile Mills Ltd Etc vs Employees State Insurace Corp. Ltd on 3 July, 2024
Author: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Bench: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081806
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.20 of 1984
Date of Decision: 03rd July, 2024
M/s Gopi Chand Textile Mills Ltd. and another
...Appellants
Versus
Employees State Insurance Corporation, Chandigarh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Argued by:- Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. H.S. Bhatia, Advocate
for the respondent-Corporation.
*****
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment handed down by learned Judge, Employees Insurance Court, Chandigarh (for short 'the ESI Court') on 11.08.1983, whereby the petition, as filed by the appellants-petitioners (here-in-after to be referred as 'the petitioners') under Section 75-G of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') with the prayer to quash the order dated 23.11.1979, passed by the Regional Director of the respondent-Corporation (here-in-after to be referred as 'the respondent') raising the demand of an amount of Rs.26,838/-, consisting of Rs.18,633/- towards the Employer's Special Contribution and the interest as accrued thereon, has been dismissed, they (petitioners) have chosen to prefer the instant appeal to lay challenge to the same.
1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2024 08:46:53 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081806 FAO No.20 of 1984 -2-
2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts, as emanating from the perusal of the record and culminating in the filing of the present appeal, are that the petitioners had filed the above-referred petition, while averring that vide the letter dated 09.05.1972, the respondent had raised the demand of the Employer's Special Contribution from the petitioner- Company for the period from 31.03.1969 to 31.03.1972 and they had, accordingly, deposited the amounts of Rs.2505.63Ps and Rs.2418.25Ps, under protest, on 30.05.1972 and 27.07.1975 respectively but thereafter, the respondent informed them that the petitioner-Company was not covered under the Act and hence, nothing was payable by it on the afore-said count and then, the petitioners filed the refund-claim vide letter dated 20.12.1972 but the same was not accepted and rather, the respondent sent another letter to the petitioner-Company, directing it therein to pay the above-mentioned amount in dispute towards the afore-described Contribution and that too, without affording the petitioners any opportunity, of being heard.
3. In its written-reply, the respondent had contested the claim of the petitioners on various grounds and had asserted that they (petitioners) themselves had admitted that the Special Contribution was payable by them w.e.f. 01.01.1972. Though, it (respondent) had issued the letter to inform the petitioner-Company that it was not liable to pay the above-referred Contribution but the same had been issued on the basis of the information received from the petitioners only, which was, subsequently, found out to be incorrect and then, they were informed that since the factory was located in Village Khairpura, an area quite independent of Sirsa area and only the 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2024 08:46:54 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081806 FAO No.20 of 1984 -3- said area (Sirsa area) had been declared as the 'sparse area', therefore, the petitioner-Company was liable to pay the Special Contribution for the period from 01.07.1972 to 30.06.1973. Moreover, even Sirsa area had also been excluded from the afore-mentioned category, vide the notification issued by the Central Government on 01.01.1972.
4. The petitioners filed their replication wherein they reiterated their earlier claim as canvassed in the petition, besides controverting the assertions, as put-forth by the respondent in its written-reply. Then, the parties were put to the trial by framing the issues and after appreciating and evaluating the evidence as led by them on the record and hearing their respective counsel, the ESI Court dismissed the above-referred petition, as already indicated in the opening para of this judgment.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation in this appeal and have also gone through the record carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that vide the letter Exhibit P-8 issued on 30.10.1972, the respondent had informed the petitioner-Company that its factory did not stand covered under the Act and it had, further, been advised not to pay the Employer's Special Contribution anymore and therefore, the respondent could not have claimed the amount in dispute from the petitioners on the afore-mentioned score and hence, the order Exhibit P-3, as issued by the respondent for directing the petitioner- Company to pay/deposit the above-said Contribution, was explicitly illegal and moreover, this order amounted to the review of the afore-referred 3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2024 08:46:54 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081806 FAO No.20 of 1984 -4- order, as conveyed to the petitioner-Company earlier vide letter Exhibit P-8 but the petitioners had not been granted any opportunity by the respondent, of being heard before passing the above-mentioned order, i.e Exhibit P-3 and it being so, they (petitioners) could not be fastened with the liability to pay the amount in question and in these circumstances, it becomes crystal clear that the impugned judgment is not legally sustainable and therefore, it is liable to be set-aside. To buttress his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the observations as made in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd Vs. Mawasi and Ors. Etc, 2012(7) SCC 200 (SC); Royal Talkies Hyderabad and ors Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation through its Regional Director, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad, 1978 LAB. I. C. 1245 (SC); M/s. Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation, 1994(4) SCC (5) 346 (SC); Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. M/s. U.P. Hotel and Restaurants Ltd. and another, 1975 LAB. I.C. 1025 (Allahabad); M/s DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs. Employees Insurance Court, Delhi & Ors, 2008 LAB. I.C. 2894 (Delhi); Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. M/s Nirbhai Roadways (P) Ltd, 1992 LAB. I.C. 1437 (P&H); Asias Paints (India) Ltd. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and another, 1981 LAB. I.C. 514 (Bombay); Free India (Private) Ltd. Vs. The Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras, 1973 LAB. I.C. 1540 (V6C 346) (Madras) and The Andhra Pradesh Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Limited Narayanaguda, Hyderabad Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad, 1988 LAB. I.C. 481 (Andhra Pradesh).
4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2024 08:46:54 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081806 FAO No.20 of 1984 -5-
7. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the letter Exhibit P-8 had been issued by the respondent on the basis of the information supplied by the petitioners to the effect that the factory was situated in Sirsa area but later-on, it was found out to be located in Village Khairpura and hence, the disputed amount had been demanded from the petitioners vide the letter Exhibit P-3 and they (petitioners) had been duly informed about the afore-narrated facts, by way of the letter Exhibit R-4, issued on 25.09.1973 and thus, the impugned judgment is perfectly legal and logical and the instant appeal deserves dismissal.
8. Though, vide letter Exhibit P-8, the respondent had informed the petitioner-Company that the factory was not covered under the Act and had advised it (petitioner-Company) not to pay the Employers' Special Contribution anymore but the fact remains that it has also categorically been mentioned therein that the respondent had so informed/advised, on the basis of the facts disclosed by the petitioners themselves in letter Exhibit P-14 dated 03.10.1972. Then, Exhibit P-7 is the letter issued by the respondent to the petitioner-Company on 06.04.1973 for seeking the information qua the revenue demarcation of the factory, i.e the name of revenue village wherein it was located and its Had Bast number etc. Further, in the letter Exhibit P-5 (also exhibited as R-4) sent by the respondent to the petitioner-Company on 25.09.1973, it has specifically been pointed out that while forwarding SC-1 Form, it (petitioner-Company) had disclosed that the factory was situated in Sirsa area and though, this area had been declared to be 'sparse area' but subsequently, the Insurance Inspector had reported that the factory was 5 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2024 08:46:54 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081806 FAO No.20 of 1984 -6- located in Village Khairpur, away from and quite independent of Sirsa area and was also having more than 500 employees and therefore, the petitioner- Company was liable to pay/deposit the Employer's Special Contribution up to 30.06.1973. To add to it, in Para No.6 in the letter Exhibit P-13 dated 27/30.05.1972 addressed by the petitioner-Company to the respondent, it (petitioner-Company) itself has admitted that its liability to pay the Special Contribution commenced from 01.01.1972. To cap it all, Mark 'A' is the notification dated 20.04.1968 issued by the Competent Authority whereby the petitioner-Company had been exempted from payment of Employer's Special Contribution, as leviable under Chapter VA of the Act and Exhibit P-11 is the notification dated 01.01.1972, regarding the withdrawal of the above-mentioned exemption. In view of the afore-discussed facts and circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to contend that the order, conveyed vide letter Exhibit P-3, did amount to the review of the order communicated to them earlier vide the letter Exhibit P-8 and that they had not been given any opportunity by the respondent, of being heard, prior to raising the demand of the above-referred amount in dispute.
9. The verdicts, as handed down in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (supra); Royal Talkies, Hyderabad and others (supra) and M/s. Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd (supra), are of no avail to the petitioners because the facts and circumstances of the afore-cited cases are quite distinguishable from those of the present one. In Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (supra), the review petitions had been dismissed on the ground that no Court or administrative authority or 6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2024 08:46:54 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081806 FAO No.20 of 1984 -7- quasi-judicial body could review its judgment or decision or order unless it was legally empowered to do so but in the instant case, as discussed earlier, order Exhibit P-3, as passed by the respondent, is not the outcome of any review-petition and rather, it had been necessitated on account of the wrong information as supplied by the petitioners qua the location of their factory and moreover, they (petitioners) themselves had admitted their liability to pay the Special Contribution vide the letter Exhibit P-13. In Royal Talkies, Hyderabad and others (supra), the employers had disputed their liability to pay the contribution but ultimately, they were held to be liable to pay the same and the Apex Court had only directed for affording a fresh hearing to the principal employers for assessment of the quantum of their contribution whereas in the present case, the quantum of the contribution has not been disputed by the petitioners. Then, in M/s. Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd (supra), the dispute pertained to the delegation of the power, as conferred under Section 85-B of the Act to recover the damages from the employers on account of non-payment of the amount due towards any contribution under the Act and its further delegation, in view of Section 94-A of the Act but in the instant case, the dispute relates to the liability of the petitioners to pay the Employer's Special Contribution under Section 73-A of the Act.
10. Further, the observations made in Employees' State Insurance Corporation (supra); M/s. DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. (supra); Employees State Insurance Corporation (supra); Asias Paints (India) Ltd. (supra); Free India (Private) Ltd (supra) and The Andhra Pradesh Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2024 08:46:54 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081806 FAO No.20 of 1984 -8- (supra), are also of no help to the petitioners because in the present case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the petitioner-Company had been informed, vide letter Exhibit P-5, about the grounds/reasons for fastening the liability upon it to pay/deposit the Special Contribution, before passing the order Exhibit P-3 and it had also been asked vide the letter Exhibit P-7 to inform the respondent about the revenue demarcation of the factory but it was not so in any of the above-referred cases.
11. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the judgment under challenge, does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity infirmity or perversity so as to call for any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the same is, hereby, upheld and the appeal in hand, being sans any merit, stands dismissed.
03.07.2024 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
neetu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2024 08:46:54 :::