The Deputy Director vs K.C.Muniappan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6186 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6186 Mad
Judgement Date : 9 March, 2021

Madras High Court

The Deputy Director vs K.C.Muniappan on 9 March, 2021

                                                                              C.M.A.No.732 of 2019


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 09.03.2021

                                                       CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                 C.M.A.No.732 of 2019

                     The Deputy Director,
                     ESI Corporation
                     Sub Regional Office,
                     333, Cross Cut Office,
                     Coimbatore - 641 102.                                        ..Appellant
                                                         Vs.

                     K.C.Muniappan                                            ..Respondent

                     Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82 (2) of ESI
                     Act, praying to set aside the order dated 12.08.2015 passed in ESIOP
                     No.11/2011 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem.


                                      For Appellant    : Mr.G.Bharadwaj

                                      For Respondent   : No appearance


                                                      JUDGMENT

The order dated 12.08.2015 passed in ESIOP No.11 of 2011 is

under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.732 of 2019

2.The substantial questions of law raised by the appellant reads as

under:

“a. Whether the ESI Court was correct in finding that the respondent alone is doing the business whereas the respondent and the other two persons admit that they are doing the same business in the same name and the same premises?

b. Whether the impugned order is sustainable when the respondent failed to submit to the appellant returns and such forms containing such particulars elating to persons employed by him as contemplated under Section 44 of the Act?

c. Whether the ESI Court was correct in setting aside the order under Section 45-A of the Act when the respondent and the other two persons have failed to submit account books and other documents relating to employment to the social Security Officer of the appellant as contemplated under Section 45(2)(b) of the Act?

d. Whether the ESI Court was correct in setting aside the order under Section 45-A of the Act when the appellant had passed the said order on the information available to them and when the respondent and the other two persons have failed to furnish returns, particulars,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.732 of 2019

registers or records as contemplated under Section 44 of the Act?”

3. All the substantial questions of law raised are relatable to the

factual aspects. However, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated

that three persons are running bus services in a same place and

therefore, the employees are to be pooled together for the purpose of

determining the contribution payable, though the proposition rooted by

the appellant seems to be inconsonance with the Act. Factually they

could not be able to establish before the ESI Court that all the three

persons joined together and constituted a single bus, so as to make a

common assessment, for determining the contribution payable.

4. Contrarily, the respondent could able to establish that all the

three persons are having separate bus services owned individually and

running the same independently. The findings of the ESI Court in this

regard are unambiguous with reference to the documents and evidences

available in paragraph No.13, which is extracted hereunder:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.732 of 2019

5. The above findings of the ESI Court reveals that the appellate

Corporation is unable to establish that all the three persons are running

in a single unit.

6. In the present case, establishing the same authorities cannot

assess or determine the contribution payable. In view of the fact that the

appellant could not able to establish their case with reference to the