Employees State Insurance ... vs The Vidarbha Cooperative ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1411 Bom

     fa559.04.J.odt                                                                                                                 1/3




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                                                
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                                                 
                                        FIRST APPEAL NO.559 OF 2004




                                                                                
                Employees State Insurance 
                Corporation Sub Regional
                Office, Panchdeep Bhawan,
                Ganeshpeth, Nagpur, through




                                                             
                its Deputy Director.                                              ....... APPELLANT
                                    ig           ...V E R S U S...
                                  
              The Vidarbha Cooperative Marketing
              Society Limited, Nagpur through
              Branch Manager, Sahakari Bhawan,
              Morshi Road, Amravati.                             ....... RESPONDENT
      


     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Mrs. B.P. Maldhure, Advocate for Appellant.
   



              Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for Respondent.
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           CORAM:  R.K. DESHPANDE, J. 

th APRIL, 2016.

                           DATE:      11


     ORAL JUDGMENT





     1]                    Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.



     2]                    The petition filed under Section 75 of the Employees State

Insurance Act, 1948 the challenge was to the demand of Rs.52,841.05

along with interest in respect of Hamal made by the appellant. The

fa559.04.J.odt 2/3

E.S.I.S. Court has allowed the application, which is the subject-matter of

challenge in this appeal.

3] Smt. B.P. Maldhure, the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant makes a statement that the demand in respect of the Hamal for

contribution is only to the extent of Rs.3815.23 and rest of the demand is

for the other workers than Hamal. The grievance of the respondent is

restricted to the recovery of the contribution in respect of Hamal.

The application under Section 75 is based upon misconception of the fact

that the demand of Rs.52,841.05 is of the recovery only in respect of

contribution of Hamals. This is not the position and the demand was

only for Rs.3815.23. The learned counsel for the appellant agrees that

the said amount of Rs.3815.23 can be deducted and the balance amount

can be paid by the respondent.

3] In view of above, it is only clarification which is required to

be given in the present matter as under:

[i] The appellant has waived the demand of Rs.3815.23, which

was in respect of contribution E.S.I.S. for Hamals, hence the

said demand does not survive.

                [ii]       In respect of the other demand, the respondent shall be at


           fa559.04.J.odt                                                                                                                 3/3

liberty to satisfy the appellant that the said amount has

already been paid or recovered from the respondent.

No order as to costs.

JUDGE

NSN