Delhi High Court
Centrl Secretariat Club vs Employees State Insurance ... on 9 January, 2020
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.01.2020
+ FAO 268/2017
CENTRAL SECRETARIAT CLUB ..... Appellant
versus
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Satya Narayan Vashishth, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. V.K. Singh with Ms. Prachi Singh and Ms.
Nisha Hans, Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
FAO 268/2017 & CM APPL.22137/2017 (stay)
1. Appellant impugns judgment dated 03.04.2017, whereby, the
petition of the appellant under Section 75 read with Section 76 and 77
of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as
the Act) has been dismissed.
2. Trial Court has held that the petition filed on behalf of the
petitioner was not filed by a duly authorised person.
3. The reasoning given by the Trial Court in the impugned order is
that the petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that
Mr. R.C. Batra, under whose signatures the petition has been filed,
was the General Secretary of the appellant Club.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that Mr. R.C. Batra
was the duly elected General Secretary elected in the Annual General
Elections for the year 2002 - 03. Learned counsel for the appellant
also points out that all the correspondences on behalf of the appellant
had been undertaken by the President and the General Secretary Mr.
R.C. Batra and were duly acknowledged by the respondent and the
documents were also duly exhibited before the Trial Court.
5. Perusal of the record shows that the appellant in this petition
under Section 74 had categorically stated that the General Secretary is
the administrative head and competent to sign for and on behalf of the
appellant Club and the petition was signed and filed by Mr. R.C.
Batra.
6. The petition also bears the seal of the Honorary General
Secretary of the appellant Club.
7. In the written statement, the only ground taken by the
respondent was that Mr. R.C. Batra is not authorised to file the
application. There is no defence taken that General Secretary is not
the authorised person on behalf of the appellant or that Mr. R.C. Batra
is not the General Secretary.
8. Perusal of the reply exhibited as Ex.PW1/4 before the Trial
Court, which was a reply to the notice dated 19.11.2003 and the
subject matter of the petition under Section 74 of the Act, shows that
the same was also signed by Mr. R.C. Batra as the Honorary General
Secretary of the appellant Club.
9. In view of the above, finding of the Trial Court that the subject
petition was not filed through a competent person is erroneous and
such a finding could not have been returned in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
10. In the impugned order the Trial Court has held that in case Mr.
R.C. Batra was not authorised to depose before the Court then there
would be no need to discuss the other aspects of the case.
11. Perusal of the order also shows that the Trial Court has not
considered the case of the appellant on merits or returned any finding
on merit.
12. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on
the order dated 31.05.2004 in FAO 182/2004 between the parties to
contend that the question as to whether the appellant is covered under
the Act, also stands conclusively decided, is misplaced.
13. Order Dated 31.05.2004, extracted by the respondent in its
reply, shows that the finding is only prima facie and further that the
Court has also in the subsequent paragraphs stated that the Court is
not expressing any opinion on the said issue.
14. The issue as to whether the appellant is covered under the Act is
a question on merit which has to be decided by the Trial Court after
considering the evidence led by the parties. The Trial Court has in the
impugned order not decided any issue on merits but has rejected the
petition filed by the appellant solely on the ground of competence
which, as noticed above, was an erroneous finding.
15. In view of the above, impugned order dated 03.04.2017 is set
aside. It is held that the petition filed on behalf of the appellant was
maintainable. Accordingly, an order of remit is passed.
16. List the matter before the Trial Court for directions on
15.02.2020.
17. The Trial Court shall once again hear the arguments of the
parties on merits and dispose of the petition filed by the appellant on
merits.
18. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor opined
on the merits of the contentions of the either parties.
19. Appeal is allowed in the above terms.
20. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
JANUARY 09, 2020/st SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
