M/S.Dcm Shriram Consolidated ... vs Employees??? Insurance Court & ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 2234 Del

                                                    UNREPORTABLE


*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                              FAO No.251/2002


                                     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‟ INSURANCE COURT & ANR         ..... Respondents
                     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.65,649.52P for the period from December 16, 1983 to

February 28, 1985 in addition to interest up to May 31, 1988

amounting to Rs.14,892.55P. 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

February 13, 2002 upheld the order passed on June 21, 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 June 21, 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 R.K.Mehta, Director,

Planning & Development, ESIC who was examined by the respondents

and who had passed the order under Section 45-A of the ESI Act. He

stated that, "I during the proceedings u/s 45-A of the ESI Act

conducted by me, did not supply a copy of the inspection report to the

employer. I did not pass any order on the request of the employer for

supply of a copy of the inspection report."

The learned counsel for the respondents though has opposed

the appeal but has not been able to counter 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 June 21, 1988 and the impugned order

dated February 13, 2002 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