[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Deputy Director, Employees State ... vs M/S Mmv Steel Industries on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4083/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4083 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
Versus
M/S MMV STEEL INDUSTRIES
==========================================================
Appearance:
VIVAN T SHAH(7947) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 02/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed under section 82(2) of the
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'ESI Act') challenging the judgment
and award dated 12.11.2024 passed by learned ESI
Court, Ahmedabad in ESI Application No.32 of 2014
whereby, the learned Court has allowed the application
filed under section 75 of ESI Act and set aside the order
passed under section 45-A and 45-AA by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4083/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
Authority as well as the recovery notice issued under
section C-19 dated 13.02.2014.
1.1. It is the case of the present appellant that the ad-hoc
assessment came to be passed for the period of
01.04.2013 to 30.09.2013 assessing the amount of
contribution of Rs.54,698/- on 23.10.2013 against which
the application came to be filed under section 45-A
which was also rejected on 18.12.2013 and had
deposited 25% of amount assessed. Thereafter, appeal
came to be filed under section 45-AA which was also
rejected on the ground of delay. Challenging the said
order, the ESI application came to be filed under section
75 of the ESI Act which came to be allowed and the
same is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vivan Shah for the
appellant-Corporation.
2.1. Learned advocate Mr.Vivan Shah submits that learned
Court has committed error in not appreciating the
statutory scheme of section 45-A of the ESI Act which
permits best judgment assessment where the employer
does not provide records. Learned advocate Mr.Vivan
Shah submits that despite the opportunity given, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4083/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
respondent failed to avail the same however, learned
Court came to the conclusion that order was passed in
violation of the principle of natural justice. Learned
advocate Mr.Vivan Shah submits that the appeal which
was filed under section 45-AA was also made for the
period of 60 days and therefore, same came to be
rejected however, considering the same, impugned
order is passed and therefore, same is required to be set
aside and this first appeal is required to be allowed.
3. Having considered the arguments made by learned
advocate Mr.Shah and referring to the reasons assigned
by the learned Court, in the opinion of this Court the
first appeal does not require to be interfered with on
following reasons:
(1) Prior to passing the orders, no record were obtained
by the Authority.
(2) No visit note was produced on record to show that
any visit was carried out and assessment was made.
(3) The salary of Rs.8250/- which was assessed and the
strength of employee mentioned 17 was without any
documentary evidence.
(4) The report of S.S.O. was also not produced before the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4083/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
learned Court.
(5) The order which was passed under section 45-A was
only after giving one opportunity and appeal under
section 45-AA which was filed after depositing 25%
amount, was rejected on the ground of delay without
considering the fact that appeal was filed within a period
of limitation as per Exh.34.
3.1. In that background, the impugned judgment does not
suffer from any infirmity. Hence, the first appeal being
devoid of merits requires to be rejected.
4. Resultantly, this appeal is rejected.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
ARCHANA S. PILLAI
