Delhi High Court
M/S.Dcm Shriram Consolidated ... vs Employees??? State Insurance ... on 27 April, 2010
Author: Rekha Sharma
UNREPORTABLE
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO No.321/2001
Date of Decision: April 27, 2010
M/S.DCM SHRIRAM CONSOLIDATED LTD. ..... Appellant
through Mr. Harvinder Singh, Advocate with
Ms. Sapna Mali & Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocates
versus
EMPLOYEES‟ STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
..... Respondent
through Mr. K.P.Mavi, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA
1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the „Digest‟? No
REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that this
case is covered by a judgment of this Court dated May 12, 2008
passed in the case of "M/s DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Versus
Employees Insurance Court Delhi & others". By virtue of the said
judgment, the case was remanded back to the Employees‟ Insurance
Court for fresh determination after supplying copy of the inspection
report to the appellant therein, on the basis of which the demand was
raised by the ESIC against the employer towards its contribution.
In so far as the present appeal is concerned, demand under
Section 45 of the Employees‟ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter
referred to as the ESI Act) was raised against the appellant amounting
to Rs.1,29,609.26P for the period from March, 1977 to
November, 1980 in addition to interest up to August 31, 1988
amounting to Rs.24,938.12P.+Rs.1856.13P. The demand so raised
was challenged by the appellant under Section 75 of the ESI Act
before the Employees‟ Insurance Court, but the learned Judge vide
order dated March 17, 2001 upheld the order passed on
September 12, 1988 and accordingly dismissed the application of the
appellant.
The main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is
that the demand raised vide order dated September 12, 1988 was
made against the appellant without furnishing a copy of the inspection
report which formed the basis of the demand. Reference in this
regard has been made to the evidence of Shri M.C.Mittal who at the
relevant time was working as Pay Officer with the appellant. He
deposed as PW.1, the relevant part of his testimony reads as under:-
"Despite our request we were not supplied with the
copies of the documents relied upon by the corporation
for its claim. We were also not provided any information,
on the basis of which the show-cause notice was given."
Reference was also made to the testimony of Shri R.K.Mehta,
Director, Planning & Development, ESIC who was examined by the
respondent and who had passed the order under Section 45-A of the
ESI Act. He stated that, "as per our rules, we do not supply the copy
of the inspection report."
The learned counsel for the respondent though has opposed the
appeal but has not been able to counter either the evidence of
Shri M.C.Mittal or the evidence of Shri R.K.Mehta who was their own
witness.
In view of what has been noticed above, I deem it proper to
remand the case to the competent authority as was done in the
aforementioned case of M/s DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. (supra).
The communication dated September 12, 1988 and the impugned
order dated March 17, 2001 are quashed. The proceedings before the
competent authority under the ESI Act are revived with a direction to
the authority to supply copy of the inspection report to the appellant
who then would grant an opportunity to the appellant to respond to
the same. The competent authority shall hold the proceedings as per
law. It is made clear that both the parties shall be at liberty to raise
all issues of fact and law before the competent authority. The trial
Court record be returned back. The Bank guarantee submitted by the
appellant pursuant to the order of this Court stands discharged.
With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.
REKHA SHARMA, J.
APRIL 27, 2010
ka
