Madras High Court
M.Subramani vs The Deputy Director on 4 February, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.11967 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
W.P.(MD) No.11967 of 2016
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.9165 of 2016
M.Subramani ... Petitioner
-vs-
The Deputy Director
Sub-Regional Officer (Madurai)
The Employees State Insurance Corporation
2nd West Street
K.K.Nagar
Madurai-625 020 ... Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the order
of the respondent passed in 57-00-047732-000-0901/Ins.I/SRO/MDU, dated
23.05.2016, quash the same and direct the respondent to consider the
petition dated 25.04.2016 filed in No.
57-00-047732-000-0599/INS.I/SRO/MDU/120/11, dated 28.03.2016.
____________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.11967 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam
For Respondent : Mr.R.Ravikumar
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. The brief facts that are relevant for the disposal of this writ
petition are as under:
2.1. The establishment of the petitioner herein was
inspected by the Inspector of Employees' State Insurance
Corporation (ESI) on 09.11.2006 and thereafter, an inspection
report dated 22.11.2006 was submitted by the Social Security
Officer of the office of the respondent. Basing upon that,
appropriate orders have been passed under the provisions of the
Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, (in short, “the ESI Act”)
requiring the petitioner to remit certain amounts towards ESI
contribution. The said orders, including the order dated
12.10.2007 covering the period between 09.11.2006 and March,
2007, were challenged by the petitioner before the ESI Court in
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ESIOP No.99 of 2007 and it was dismissed by order dated
08.12.2015.
2.2. Aggrieved by the order passed in the said ESIOP
No.99 of 2007, dated 08.12.2015, the petitioner approached this
Court by filing C.M.A.(MD) No.446 of 2016 and the said civil
miscellaneous appeal was allowed by this Court by Judgment
dated 21.03.2023 by setting aside the order passed by the ESI
Court, dated 08.12.2015 as well as the order passed by the
respondent dated 12.10.2007 and holding that the provisions of
the ESI Act has no application to the establishment of the
petitioner as the total number of employees working in the
petitioner's establishment is less than ten.
2.3. The said proceedings are pertaining to the period
from November, 2006 to March, 2007. Basing upon the very same
inspection that took place on 09.11.2006, the proceedings in
respect of the subsequent period were initiated resulting in passing
an ex parte order dated 28.03.2016 in proceedings No.
57-00-047732-000-0599/INS.I/SRO/MDU/120/11 covering the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
period between April, 2007 to September, 2010. The said order
came to be passed ex parte. Under those circumstances, the
petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte order dated
28.03.2016 before the respondent directly. But the respondent
refused to entertain the said application and rejected the same by
order dated 23.05.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent having taken
note of the earlier orders passed by this Court in C.M.A.(MD) No.446 of 2016
fairly submitted that the very order dated 28.03.2016 passed ex parte does not
stand as the very provisions of the ESI Act were held to be not applicable to
the petitioner's establishment at the relevant point of time.
4. In the light of the same, though this writ petition is filed against
the order dated 23.05.2016, this Court is of the considered view that it would
be appropriate to put an end to the entire litigation as the very basis of the
order dated 28.03.2016 has been taken away by virtue of the Judgment dated
21.03.2023, passed by this Court in C.M.A.(MD) No.446 of 2016.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. In the light of the above, the impugned order, dated 23.05.2016
in the proceedings bearing No.57-00-047732-000-0901/Ins.I/SRO/MDU as
well as the order dated 28.03.2016 in the proceedings bearing No.
57-00-047732-000-0599/INS.I/SRO/MDU/120/11 passed by the respondent
are hereby quashed. However, it is left open to the respondent to initiate
appropriate proceedings against the petitioner's establishment in accordance
with law. It is made clear that the orders passed by this Court in C.M.A.(MD)
No.446 of 2016 as well as this order will not come in the way of the
respondent in initiating fresh proceedings against the petitioner's
establishment.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
krk
and
04.02.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
