M/S Arihant Casting And ... vs The Deputy Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 12363 Kant

                          -1-




                                 MFA No. 101501 of 2021


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                        BEFORE
          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
    MISC.FIRST APPEAL NO. 101501 OF 2021 (ESI)
BETWEEN:
M/S ARIHANT CASTING AND ENGINEERING
INDUDSTRIES,
PLOT NO. B-32,
R S NO. 330,
UDYAMBAG, BELGAUM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
JINEDRA S/O TAVANAPPA BHENDIGERE
PIN CODE-590008.
                                            ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR B.HALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
E.S.I. CORPORATION,
SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE,
NO.4 DOLLARS HEIGHT
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030.
                                          ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B.KANAVI, ADVOCATE)
     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.82(2) OF EMPLOYEES STATE
INSURANCE ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2021,
PASSED IN ESI. APPLICATION NO.3/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBBALLI,
REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 75 OF
THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -2-




                                       MFA No. 101501 of 2021


                          JUDGMENT

The appellant has challenged the order dated

02.09.2021 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi in ESI

Application No.3/2015.

2. The appellant had filed an application before the

Industrial Tribunal under Section 75 of the Employees State

Insurance Act to set aside the order passed by the

appropriate authority demanding contribution of

Rs.1,50,150/- on the ground that the appellant had failed to

make contribution in respect of its employees who were

more than ten in number. The appellant was required to lead

evidence to establish the claim that he had not engaged

more than ten employees and therefore was not covered

under the Act. However, since the appellant did not lead

evidence due to alleged health problems, the Tribunal

proceeded and dismissed the case of the appellant.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended

that the appellant could not participate in the proceedings

and give evidence due to his health condition which did not

MFA No. 101501 of 2021

permit him to participate in the proceedings and prays that

an opportunity be provided to lead evidence.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that

despite giving adequate opportunity to the appellant, he did

not take advantage of the same.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

6. When the appellant had challenged the order

passed by the appropriate authority demanding contribution

on the ground that the appellant had engaged more than ten

employees and therefore covered under the ESI Act, such

order had a serious consequence insofar as appellant is

concerned and therefore in the interest of justice, he is

entitled for an opportunity to adduce evidence and establish

his contention before the Industrial Tribunal. Hence, the

following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi

MFA No. 101501 of 2021

for reconsideration of the application in ESI No.3/2015 after permitting the appellant to lead evidence.

The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible which shall not be later than six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

All contentions are left open.

SD/-

JUDGE

CLK