Madras High Court
M/S Coral Land & Building ... vs Employees' State Insurance ... on 20 March, 2023
C.M.A. (MD)No.208 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A.(MD)No.208 of 2017
M/s Coral Land & Building Promoters Pvt., Ltd.,
B 20/5, N.G.O.B Colony,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli 627 007
through its Managing Director ...Appellant/ Petitioner
Vs.
1.Employees' State Insurance Corporation,
Sub Regional Office (Tirunelveli),
Salai Street, Vannarpettai,
Tirunelveli -3, Tirunelveli District,
through its Joint Director
2.The Recovery Officer,
Employees' State Insurance Corporation,
Sub Regional Office (Tirunelveli),
Salai Street, Vannarpettai,
Tirunelveli-3, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 82(2) of the
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, against the fair and decretal order of the
Employees' State Insurance Court/Labour Court, Tirunelveli in E.S.I.O.P.No.5 of
2016 dated 19.10.2016.
For Appellant : Mr. P.Rajesh
For Respondents : Mr.P.Ganapathisamy
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.208 of 2017
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been filed by the employer challenging the
dismissal of the ESI petition by the Labour Court and confirming the order passed
by the ESI Corporation under Section 45 A of the ESI Act.
2. The petitioner is running a construction company, which is the
Sub-Contractor of L&T company. A notice was issued to the appellant on
26.06.2014 to show cause why action should not be initiated for non-payment of
contribution. After receipt of show cause notice, some authorised persons from
the appellant/company had appeared for personal hearing, but they have not
produced the records. Therefore, the Corporation had proceeded to pass an order
under Section 45 A of the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to
'Act' for brevity) on 07.07.2015 raising an amount of Rs.1,12,613/- for the period
covering September-2012 to May-2014. This order was challenged by the
employer by filing ESIOP.No.5 of 2016 before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli. The
said petition was dismissed by the Labour Court. Challenging the same, the
present appeal has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.208 of 2017
3.According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/company,
they are Sub-Contractors of L&T Company and they were under the impression
that ESI contribution would be paid by the L&T company themselves. They
further contended that all the employees alleged to be covered under the Act are
drawing more than Rs.15,000/- and hence, they are exempted from the provisions
of the Act.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the ESI Corporation
contended that the appellant/employer himself has filed Form-01 before the
authorities indicating the name of the 10 employees, who are drawing a sum of
Rs.10,000/- only. Therefore, at no stretch of imagination, it can be construed that
the employees were drawing a salary more than Rs.15,000/- attracting the
exempting from the ESI Act. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the records.
6. It is not in dispute that the appellant/company has been allotted a
separate Code under the ESI Act. The company has also submitted Form-01
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.208 of 2017
before the authorities indicating that there are 10 employees working in the
company, who are drawing salary less than Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the contention
of the learned counsel for the appellant that these employees are drawing more
than Rs.15,000/- salary and they are exempted from the purview of the Act is
contrary to the declaration Form submitted by the appellant himself. That apart,
the appellant had further contended that they were under the impression that their
main contractor, namely, L&T company would clear the ESI contribution.
However, a perusal of Ex.P1 and Ex.P.4, which are agreements between the L&T
company and the appellant/company would reveal that as per the said agreement,
the appellant/company has to pay the contribution and thereafter, get it reimbursed
from the L&T company. Therefore, it is clear that the liability is cast upon the
appellant/company to pay the contribution under the ESI Act. Therefore, both the
grounds raised by the appellant/company are not sustainable in law. I do not find
any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the ESI Court in dismissing the
petition. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.
20.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Rmk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.208 of 2017
To
1.The Employees' State Insurance Court/Labour Court, Tirunelveli.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.208 of 2017
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
Rmk
C.M.A.(MD)No.208 of 2017
20.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
