Madras High Court
M/S.Magus Customer Dialogue Pvt. ... vs The Deputy Director on 9 March, 2021
C.M.A.No.1463 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.1463 of 2018
C.M.P.No.11671 of 2018
M/s.Magus Customer Dialogue Pvt. Ltd
Rajarajan Mansion, 4th floor
MNO Complex,
68/1, Greams Road,
Chennai-600 006. .. Appellant
vs.
1.The Deputy Director,
The Employees State Insurance Corporation,
143, Sterling Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.
2.The Manager
Citi Bank,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002. .. Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82(2) of the
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, against the order and decree dated
16.03.2018 in E.I.O.P.No.59 of 2006 passed by the learned Judge, Principal
Labour Court, (Employees' Insurance Court), Chennai.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1463 of 2018
For Appellant : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co
For Respondents :Mr.S.P.Srinivasan for R1
R2-Given up
ORDER
The order dated 16.03.2018 passed in E.I.O.P.No.59 of 2006 is under
challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly
contended that the Employees Insurance Court has extracted the pleadings
of the parties and dismissed the appeal without any adjudication or findings
with reference to the issues as well as the evidence produced by the parties.
3. On perusal of the order, it reveals that in 13 page judgment, upto
paragraph No.15, pleadings are extracted. In paragraph No.16, the
Employees Insurance Court arrived a conclusion that the appellant is bound
the pay the amount claimed by the respondent. It is further stated that on
perusal of the records, the claim of the respondents is rightful and legally
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1463 of 2018
valid. Except the general observation, the Employees Insurance Court has
not decided the issues with reference to the documents and evidence
produced by the parties. Appeals under Section 75 of the ESI Act are to be
adjudicated on merits and in accordance with law and by affording
opportunity to the parties. The appeal being a first appeal, the factual
aspects are to be considered and the findings are to be arrived by the
Employees Insurance Court. However, in the present case, no such exercise
has been done by the Employees Insurance Court. Contrarily, the pleadings
were recorded and the petition was dismissed by merely stating that the
claim of the respondent is rightful and legally valid. Such finding is
insufficient for the purpose of satisfying the application of mind to be
exercised.
4. This being the factum, this Court is of the opinion that the matter
deserves to be remanded back for re-consideration. Accordingly, the order
dated 16.03.2018 passed in E.I.O.P.No.59 of 2006 is set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the Employees Insurance Court [Principal
Labour Court, Chennai] for fresh adjudication by affording opportunity to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1463 of 2018
all the parties and dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with
law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
5. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
09.03.2021
ssb
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1463 of 2018
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
ssb
To
1.The Judge,
Principal Labour Court, (Employees' Insurance Court), Chennai.
2.The Deputy Director,
The Employees State Insurance Corporation,
143, Sterling Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.
C.M.A.No.1463 of 2018
09.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
