Standard Industrial Products ... vs The Regional Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 5724 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 5724 Mad
Judgement Date : 4 March, 2021

Madras High Court

Standard Industrial Products ... vs The Regional Director on 4 March, 2021

                                                                             C.M.A.No.2800 of 2019

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 04.03.2021

                                                       CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                C.M.A.No.2800 of 2019
                                                         and
                                                C.M.P.No.14345 of 2019

                     Standard Industrial Products Private Limited,
                     Super VGA Industrial Estate,
                     Guindy,
                     Chennai – 600 032.
                     Represented by its Director Mr.K.K.Falor.                  ..Appellant

                                                         Vs.

                     The Regional Director,
                     Employees State Insurance Corporation,
                     143, Sterling Road,
                     Chennai – 600 034.                                         ..Respondent

                     Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82 (2) of the
                     Employee's State Insurance Act praying to set aside the judgment and
                     decree in E.I.O.P.No.171 of 2003 dated 30.06.2017 and allow the
                     appeal.

                                      For Appellant    : Mr.G.Anand
                                                         for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.

                                      For Respondent   : Mr.K.Prabkar



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

                     1/6
                                                                               C.M.A.No.2800 of 2019




                                                   JUDGMENT

The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal on hand are

that whether the ESI Court was right in upholding the 45-A order when

the appellant had not exercised any supervision in respect of employees

of third party agents. Whether the order of ESI Court is contrary to the

law laid down by the full bench judgement of Madras High Court

reported in 2008 (2) LLJ – 278.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

mainly contended that the order passed by the Competent Authorities

under Section 45-A of the ESI Act, was non-speaking and issued in the

absence of any material evidence. Thus, the appellant had preferred an

appeal under Section 75 of the Act, before the Principal Labour Court,

Chennai. The Principal Labour Court has not considered and adjudicated

the issues with reference to the grounds raised in the appeal. Contrarily,

the pleadings of the Labour Court were extracted as observed hereunder:

“9. On perusal of the petition, written statement and documents, this Court can understand that the petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.M.A.No.2800 of 2019

employs around 19 employees in its factory. It is covered under the ESI Act. This Court understands that the respondent’s Statutory Inspector verified the records produced by the petitioner for the years 1991-92 to 1993- 94 and observed that acr charges, repair and maintenance and consultancy charges for the years 1991-92 to 1993-94 and arrived the amount to Rs.62,647/- for the proposed contribution of Rs.98,284/-. On the basis of the inspection report the respondent issued a Show Cause Notice in Form C-18 dated 19.03.2001 to the petitioner with an opportunity of being heard on 19.05.2003 and on that day actual contribution payable was arrived by the respondent officer which was duly countersigned by the petitioner’s authorized representative who attended the personal hearing. It is further understood that the petitioner appeared before the ESI Authority. Finally, the respondent corporation has passed an order under Section 45-A dated 21.05.2003 directing the petitioner to pay sum of Rs.62,647/- for the period of 1991-92 to 1993-94.”

3. It is contended that none of the oral and documentary evidences

produced by parties had been adjudicated nor considered by the Labour

Court and therefore, the appellant must be provided with an opportunity

to adjudicate the issues on merits and in accordance with law. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.M.A.No.2800 of 2019

learned counsel appearing for the respondent is unable to dispute the

said ground raised on behalf of the appellant.

4. Perusal of the findings reveals that the ESI Court had not

adjudicated nor considered the oral and documentary evidences

produced by the parties. All the issues raised are to be addressed with

reference to the documents and evidences made available. Contrarily, up

to Paragraph No.8 of the judgment, the pleadings were extracted and for