Madras High Court
M/S.Pl Agro Technologies Ltd vs The Employees State Insurance ... on 26 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.488 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.488 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
M/s.PL Agro Technologies Ltd.,
Leslie House, 398,
Periyar EVR High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
..Appellant
Vs.
The Employees State Insurance Corporation,
143, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034. ..Respondent
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82 of the
Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 praying to set aside the judgment
dated 25.04.2011 in E.I.O.P.No.445 of 2001 on the file of the ESI Court
(Principal Labour Court), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Venkatesh Kumar for
M/s.Gupta and Ravi
For Respondent : Mrs.Sujatha
for Mr.K.Prabakar
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.488 of 2013
JUDGMENT
The judgment dated 25.04.2011 passed in E.I.O.P.No.445 of 2001
is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. Absolutely no substantial questions of law raised. The
substantial questions of law narrated in the grounds of appeal is
unambiguous which related to factual aspects. The substantial questions
of law raised states that whether ESI Court committed an error in
appreciating the documents and evidences produced by the appellant.
3. This Court is of the considered opinion that there was an
adjudication by the Competent Authority under Section 45-A of the Act.
An appeal was filed under Section 75 of the Act before ESI Court by the
Appellant. The ESI Court elaborately considered the issues by affording
an opportunity to the appellant. Appellant also defended his case. The
findings of the ESI Court reveals that the appellant had not produced
required documents and even Tribunal cross-examined the witness on
behalf of the appellant and deposed that he has no knowledge about the
documents. Even after the demand, the appellant has not produced any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.488 of 2013
documents and stated that he has no knowledge about the documents
and no such documents were filed.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant now states that the
documents were filed and said documents were not considered by the
ESI Court. If at all, the said statement is true, the appellant would have
adjudicated the issues during the relevant point of time before the ESI
Court itself. Contrarily, now before the High Court in an appeal under
Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, he cannot plead all
such factual aspects.
5. Therefore, this Court is of an opinion that the appellant has not
raised any substantial question of law which is acceptable for the
purpose of considering the appeal any further. The findings of the ESI
Court reveals that the issues were considered and the contribution made
by the Competent Authority under Section 45-A of the ESI Act is in
consonance with the principles and there is no infirmity as such.
6. This being the factum established, this Court is not inclined to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.488 of 2013
entertain the appeal as there was no substantial questions of law raised
and no further adjudication needs to be entertained with reference to the
Section 45-A of the ESI Act.
7. Accordingly, the judgment passed in E.I.O.P.No.445 of 2001
dated 25.04.2011 stands confirmed and C.M.A.No.488 of 2013 stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
8. The appellant is directed to pay the contribution as per the
order of the Competent Authority, within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
26.02.2021
Pns
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.488 of 2013
To
The ESI Court (Principal Labour Court), Chennai.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Pns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.488 of 2013
C.M.A.No.488 of 2013
26.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
