Madras High Court
The E.S.I. Corporation vs Madras Cement Limited on 6 June, 2023
C.M.A.(MD).No.842 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.842 of 2012
The E.S.I. Corporation,
Represented by its Deputy Regional Director,
Sub Regional Office,
2nd West Street,
K.K.Nagar,
Madurai – 625 020. .....Appellant/Respondent
-vs-
Madras Cement Limited,
Represented by its General Manager (Admin),
G.Madanagopal,
S/o.A.Govindasamy,
having Office at
No.47, P.S.K.Nagar,
Rajapalayam – 626 117. .... Respondent /Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82(2) of the ESI
Act, 1948, against the decree and judgment of the Employees' State Insurance
cum Labour Court, Madurai, passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.65 of 2001, dated
20.10.2011.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Dilipkumar
For Respondent : Mr.M.Saravanan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.M.A.(MD).No.842 of 2012
JUDGMENT
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the E.S.I.
Corporation challenging the order of remand passed by the Employees' State
Insurance cum Labour Court, Madurai, in E.S.I.O.P.No. 65 of 2001.
2. The respondent herein suffered with two orders under Section 45-A
of the E.S.I. Act on 27.06.2001, wherein, the employer was directed to pay a
sum of Rs.7,623/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Three
only) and the other order directed to pay a sum of Rs.77,416/- (Rupees
Seventy Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Sixteen only).
3. As per the contention of the employer before the E.S.I Corporation,
he was not given sufficient opportunity to place all the records before the ESI
Corporation. Therefore, the orders passed under Section 45-A of the Act
suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. Whenever the employer
produced the documents, which were called for from the E.S.I. Corporation,
the Corporation demanded new documents and therefore, adjournments were
sought for the purpose of production of documents. Ultimately, when an
adjournment was sought on the final hearing date, without considering the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.842 of 2012
said request, the final order came to be passed. Therefore, the employer
sought to set aside these two orders before the Labour Court.
4. However, E.S.I.Corporation had contended that atleast on 16
occasions, adjournments were granted to the employer for furnishing the
relevant documents to establish their case. However, on every occasion, the
employer produced only partial documents and sought for adjournments for
production of the balance documents. Therefore, only the employer is under
fault. The Corporation had further contended that the employer had not
produced the wage register and other relevant records to establish the case
that they are not covered under the E.S.I.Act.
5. The E.S.I Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence
on either side, had arrived at a conclusion that the employer was not given
reasonable opportunity to produce the relevant records relating to two periods
covered under two orders under Section 45-A of the E.S.I.Act on 27.06.2001
and had remitted the matter back to the E.S.I.Corporation for fresh
consideration and provide opportunity to the employer to produce the
documents. This order of remand is under challenge in the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.842 of 2012
6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the
employer was given sufficient opportunity for production of documents
before passing of orders under Section 45-A of the E.S.I.Act. In fact, 16
hearings were afforded to the employer for production of documents. Despite
given sufficient opportunity, the employer had not come forward to produce
the documents and he was seeking adjournments only to drag on the issue.
Therefore, the E.S.I. Court was not right in remitting the matter back to the
Corporation to pass fresh orders under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the employer has
contended that due to transfer of the Senior Manager of the employer, they
were not in a position to produce all the records that are relevant. But, on
every hearing, the Corporation demanded new document and therefore, they
were constrained to seek adjournments. Hence, he prayed to sustain the order
of remand.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel on either side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.842 of 2012
9. It is a settled position of law that the proceedings before the E.S.I.
Court are the original proceedings and the parties have to place all the
documents afresh before the E.S.I. Court to establish their respective cases.
Therefore, the E.S.I. Court was not right in remitting the matter back to the
E.S.I. Corporation. However, certain additional documents on the side of the
employer have not been produced. In fact, the employer had submitted before
the E.S.I. Court that they were ready to produce the relevant documents and
statements relating to the above said period.
10. In view of the above said facts, the employer is permitted to
produce the documents before the E.S.I. Court instead of remitting the matter
back to the Corporation, since the proceedings before the E.S.I. Court is not a
proceeding before the appellate Court, but they are original proceedings. The
parties are at liberty to produce all the documents before the E.S.I. Court
including those documents which were not presented before the E.S.I.
Corporation. Therefore, the order of remand passed by the E.S.I.Court is not
legally sustainable.
11. In view of the above, the substantial questions of law are answered
in favour of the appellant and the order of remand passed by the E.S.I. Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.842 of 2012
is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the E.S.I. Court. Both
the employer as well as the E.S.I. Corporation are at liberty to place the
records before the E.S.I. Court to establish their respective cases. However,
the E.S.I. Court is directed to complete the enquiry within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. With the above said observation, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
06.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.842 of 2012
To
1. The Employees' State Insurance cum Labour Court,
Madurai.
2. Madras Cement Limited,
Represented by its General Manager (Admin),
G.Madanagopal,
S/o.A.Govindasamy,
having Office at
No.47, P.S.K.Nagar,
Rajapalayam – 626 117.
3. The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.842 of 2012
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
C.M.A.(MD)No.842 of 2012
06.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
