Delhi High Court
Indian Railway Catering And ... vs Employees State Insurance ... on 24 February, 2020
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 24.02.2020
+ W.P.(C) 2780/2019 & CM APPL. 12839/2019
INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM
CORPORATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Mr. Sunil
Malhotra, Mr. Vivek Kr. Karn, Mr.
Iliyas N. And Mr. Sourish Bagchi,
Advocates.
versus
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. V.K. Singh, Mr. Prachi Singh and
Mr. Nisha Hans, Advocates for ESIC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. This petition impugns an order dated 26.02.2019 and the Notice of
Demand dated 08.03.2019 passed by the Employees' State Insurance
Corporation. The petitioner was supposed to pre-deposit 25% i.e. Rs.
11,72,920/- of the impugned amount of Rs. 46,91,680/-, as computed under
section 45 A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The petitioner
being aggrieved by the initial assessment preferred an appeal under section
45 AA of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, which was received in
the Office of the Appellate Authority on 22.01.2019, but without the
requisite deposit of the 25% of the assessed amount.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:KAMLESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:06.03.2020
17:36:07
2. Statutorily, the amount could have been deposited only till
27.01.2020. The petitioner did endeavor to deposit it before the expiry of
the said date but instead, it got deposited only on 31.01.2019 i.e. four days
later. Notably though, the Demand Draft for the said amount of Rs.
11,72,920/- had been prepared on 24.01.2019. In other words, the
petitioner's account had been deducted by the said amount on the said date.
Therefore, its commitment to pursue the appeal is clearly established.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ESIC is a large
corporate body with hundreds of cases pending against it and a minor
anomaly in not attaching the Demand Draft or in not filing it within the
prescribed time limit should not be so visited upon the petitioner, so as to
render it remediless. Therefore, the appeal may be heard on merits, subject
to such terms as may be imposed by this Court.
4. In the aforecontext, the petitioner's contention is valid. The appeal
had already been filed within the time, only there was a delay of four days in
depositing the DD, therefore in the interest of justice, the delay of 4 days is
condoned, subject to payment of Rs. 15,000/- as costs to respondent no. 1.
5. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. The
petitioner's appeal shall be disposed-off on merits.
6. The petition is allowed and disposed-off in terms of the above.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
FEBRUARY 24, 2020
AB
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:KAMLESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:06.03.2020
17:36:07
