Jharkhand High Court
M/S The Tinplate Company Of India ... vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 16 November, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 28 of 2022
With
I.A. Nos. 8589 of 2022 & 9978 of 2022
---
M/s The Tinplate Company of India Limited, Jamshedpur, District- East
Singhbhum represented through its Deputy General Manager (HRM &
SS)-Shri Harjit Singh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Raunak Sahay, A.C. to G.P.-V
For the Resp.-ESIC : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Order No. 04 Dated: 16.11.2022
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated
24.03.2021 passed by the Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment
Training and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand (the respondent
no. 2), a copy of which has been communicated to the petitioner vide
memo no. 436 dated 30.03.2021 whereby the petitioner's application filed
for exemption under Sections 87 & 88 read with Section 91-A of the
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short, "the Act, 1948") for the
calendar years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 has been rejected.
The petitioner has also filed I.A. No. 8589 of 2022 for staying the
operation/execution/implementation of Order No. 3339 dated 25.07.2022
issued by the Assistant Director, Authorized Officer (Ins. IV), Employees'
State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), Regional Office, Jharkhand, Ranchi to
the petitioner (Annexure- 1 to the present interlocutory application), which
relates to arrears of contribution payable by the employer (the petitioner
herein) in respect of its employees for the period from 01.07.2017 to
31.12.2018, whereby an amount of Rs.1,24,63,952/- including interest has
been determined as contribution to be paid by the petitioner for the said
period, within 60 days from the date of the order, failing which the same
would be recovered under Section 45-B of the Act, 1948 as arrear of land
revenue or under Section 45-C to 45-I of the said Act.
The petitioner has also filed I.A. No. 9978 of 2022 for staying the
operation and implementation of the prohibitory order bearing no.
Q/RR/60000010090000501/2317 dated 14.10.2022 passed by the
Recovery Officer, ESIC, Regional Office, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the
petitioner's bank account no. 301105010000002 being maintained in Union
Bank of India, Branch Tinplate Jamshedpur, Golmuri, has been attached
with a direction to the Bank to remit Rs.1,93,22,512/- to the ESIC. Mr.
Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction, submits
that another bank account of the petitioner being maintained in HDFC
Bank, Jamshedpur Main Branch has also been attached for realisation of
the aforesaid dues.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated
25.07.2022 has been passed by the Assistant Director, Authorized Officer
(Ins. IV), ESIC, Regional Office, Jharkhand, Ranchi under Section 45-A of
the Act, 1948. However, the petitioner has primarily challenged the order
dated 24.03.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby its application
seeking exemption under Sections 87 & 88 read with Section 91A of the
Act, 1948 has been rejected. In fact, the order passed under Section 45-A
of the Act, 1948 is consequential in nature. It is further submitted that the
respondent no. 2 while passing the impugned order dated 24.03.2021 has
not considered the details of different benefits being granted by the
petitioner to its employees, rather the said order has been passed in a
cryptic manner also ignoring that as per proviso to Section 87 of the Act,
1948, exemptions may be granted if benefits being given to the employees
by the concerned factories or establishment are otherwise substantially
similar or superior to the benefits provided under the Act, 1948. It is also
submitted that the impugned order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the
respondent no. 2 is for the calendar years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 for
which the required benefits have already been extended by the petitioner
to its employees. The said benefits cannot now be given to them
retrospectively. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed
on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Distilleries &
Chemical Mazdoor Union and Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 604.
It is further submitted that the petitioner-company provided better
facilities to its employees for the period from 01.10.1996 to 14.11.2000,
from 15.11.2004 to 31.12.2004 and from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015 for
which it was granted exemption. Since the order passed under Section
45-A of the Act, 1948 is consequential to the rejection of the petitioner's
application seeking exemption under Sections 87 & 88 read with Section
91-A of the Act, 1948, the same may be stayed during pendency of the
writ petition.
Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, A.C. to Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-ESIC, submits that the
order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the Assistant Director, Authorized
Officer (Ins. IV), ESIC, Regional Office, Jharkhand, Ranchi under Section
45-A of the Act, 1948 is appealable in nature, hence the present writ
petition is not maintainable.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on prima facie
consideration of the issue involved in the present writ petition, the order
dated 25.07.2022 passed by the Assistant Director, Authorized Officer (Ins.
IV), ESIC, Regional Office, Jharkhand, Ranchi is hereby stayed till further
order.
Consequently, the Regional Director, ESIC, Regional Office, Ranchi
(the respondent no. 3) is directed to defreeze the concerned bank
accounts of the petitioner which shall be subject to the final outcome of
the present writ petition.
I.A. No. 8589 of 2022 and 9978 of 2022 stand disposed of
accordingly.
Put up this case along W.P.(C) No. 3915 of 2021.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Ritesh/
