Delhi High Court
M/S Delhi Travels & Tours vs Employees State Insurance ... on 9 September, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 9th September, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 5740/2014
M/S DELHI TRAVELS & TOURS ..... Petitioner
Represented by:Ms. Ashish Mohan, Adv.
versus
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
..... Respondent
Represented by:Mr. K.P. Mavi and Mr. B.P.
Mishra, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CM. No. 14169/2014(for exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
+ W.P.(C) 5740/2014
1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of impugned
order dated 21.07.2014 passed by Deputy Director of the respondent as
under:-
"Subject: Representation for consideration in view of New
Amnesty Scheme-2014.
Sir,
Kindly refer to your letter dated 2.6.14 on the above
subject. In this connection you are informed that your case
does not fall under the purview of "New Amnesty Scheme-
W.P.(C) 5740/2014 Page No. 1/4
2014" since your case has already been decided by the
Court."
2. Vide order dated 16.09.2011, SCJ cum RC (Central) Delhi, passed
order as under:-
"Accordingly, instant impugned demand is hereby quashed
and ESIC is directed to decide the coverage upon the
petitioner establishment within four months on actual basis
after taking into consideration the relevant documents of
petitioner unit for the said purpose. The relevant
documents/records be supplied to the respondent by the
petitioner within three months from today and after the
decision by ESIC fresh steps can be taken by the petitioner
as per law. In case of dis-satisfaction on the part of the
petitioner with the fresh reassessment order passed by
ESIC, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the
Court. Amount already deposited, if any, shall be adjusted.
If no demand is made out then amount already deposited, if
any, will be refunded. If any demand is made out then
interest as per rules will be claimed. The interest on the
amount already deposited, if any, shall be calculated from
the date of demand till the date of payment in the court if
any excess demand is made. For the balance the date of
demand to the actual date of payment the interest shall be
calculated as per rules. In case of failure to show the
relevant documents by the petitioner the demand as such
will remain. Copy of this order as well as statement be
given dasti to both the parties for compliance. File be
consigned to record room."
3. Thereafter vide order dated 26.08.2013, the Deputy Director of
Employees' State Insurance Corporation passed the order as under:-
"The employer was requested to produce the records at
SRO Okhla on 17.09.2012. The employer did not produce
the necessary records taking unsustainable and illegal
defence of time barred claim judgment of the Court. The
W.P.(C) 5740/2014 Page No. 2/4
employer was again requested to produce records on
15.01.2013 vide this office letter dated 18.12.2012. The
employer did not produce the records on 15.01.2013.
Keeping in view the natural justice one more opportunity
was given to the employer to produce records at SRO Okhla
on 15.04.2013 vide this office letter dated 13.03.2013.
Again employer did not produce the records. In response
to this office letter dated 13.03.2013 for production of
records SRO Okhla on 13.3.2013, the employer stated that
there was a fire occurred on 09.06.2009 whereas he had
admitted before Hon'ble Court on 16.09.2011 that he will
produce the records.
It is note worthy that the Principal Employer withdrawing
suit on promise of production of records which were not
produced pursuant to Court Order dated 16.09.2011.
After going through the facts available on record, I am of
the opinion that the employer is willingly not producing the
records despite Hon'ble Court order on one pretext or the
other as such the contribution already claimed vide this
office C-19 dated 01.10.2008 amounting to Rs.11,05,790/-
is payable."
4. After passing the aforesaid order, the petitioner moved an application
under Section 75 (2B) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 for
waiver of pre-condition deposit and application under Section 75 read with
Sections 76 and 78 of the Act against the impugned order dated 26.08.2013
along with the application as noted above which are still pending before the
SCJ cum RC (South East).
5. I note though the application is pending after passing the final order,
however, in order dated 20.08.2014, the learned Judge has passed the order
as under:-
W.P.(C) 5740/2014 Page No. 3/4
"Petitioner admits that respondent has refused to settle the
matter under the New Amnesty Scheme 2014. Time sought
by petitioner to comply the order dated 07.03.2014.
Previous costs be deposited by the petitioner in DLSA.
Amount be deposited within one week as per order dated
07.03.2014 by petitioner."
6. Admittedly, the Amnesty Scheme is for the settlement. If the other
party is not interested to settle the issue then the case will be dealt as per
law. In the present case, the petitioner has defaulted to produce the record.
Therefore, under the compelling circumstances, the learned Judge passed the
order and directed the petitioner to deposit the amount. Though the
application mentioned above is pending as recorded in order dated
20.08.2014 has no bearing when the other party is not interested to settle the
amount. Moreover, order dated 26.08.2013 has attained finality. Therefore,
in passing impugned order dated 21.07.2014, I find no discrepancy.
7. In view of above, the instant petition is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
CM. NO. 14168/2014 (for Stay)
With the dismissal of the instant petition, instant application has
become infructuous and dismissed as such.
SURESH KAIT, J
SEPTEMBER 09, 2014
Rb/jg
W.P.(C) 5740/2014 Page No. 4/4
