Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Gopi Chand Textile Mills Ltd Etc vs Employees State Insurace Corp. Ltd on 3 July, 2024
Author: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Bench: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081806
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.20 of 1984
Date of Decision: 03rd July, 2024
M/s Gopi Chand Textile Mills Ltd. and another
...Appellants
Versus
Employees State Insurance Corporation, Chandigarh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Argued by:- Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. H.S. Bhatia, Advocate
for the respondent-Corporation.
*****
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment handed down by learned
Judge, Employees Insurance Court, Chandigarh (for short 'the ESI Court')
on 11.08.1983, whereby the petition, as filed by the appellants-petitioners
(here-in-after to be referred as 'the petitioners') under Section 75-G of the
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') with the prayer
to quash the order dated 23.11.1979, passed by the Regional Director of the
respondent-Corporation (here-in-after to be referred as 'the respondent')
raising the demand of an amount of Rs.26,838/-, consisting of Rs.18,633/-
towards the Employer's Special Contribution and the interest as accrued
thereon, has been dismissed, they (petitioners) have chosen to prefer the
instant appeal to lay challenge to the same.
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081806
2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts, as emanating
from the perusal of the record and culminating in the filing of the present
appeal, are that the petitioners had filed the above-referred petition, while
averring that vide the letter dated 09.05.1972, the respondent had raised
the demand of the Employer's Special Contribution from the petitioner-
Company for the period from 31.03.1969 to 31.03.1972 and they had,
accordingly, deposited the amounts of Rs.2505.63Ps and Rs.2418.25Ps,
under protest, on 30.05.1972 and 27.07.1975 respectively but thereafter, the
respondent informed them that the petitioner-Company was not covered
under the Act and hence, nothing was payable by it on the afore-said count
and then, the petitioners filed the refund-claim vide letter dated 20.12.1972
but the same was not accepted and rather, the respondent sent another letter
to the petitioner-Company, directing it therein to pay the above-mentioned
amount in dispute towards the afore-described Contribution and that too,
without affording the petitioners any opportunity, of being heard.
3. In its written-reply, the respondent had contested the claim of
the petitioners on various grounds and had asserted that they (petitioners)
themselves had admitted that the Special Contribution was payable by them
w.e.f. 01.01.1972. Though, it (respondent) had issued the letter to inform
the petitioner-Company that it was not liable to pay the above-referred
Contribution but the same had been issued on the basis of the information
received from the petitioners only, which was, subsequently, found out to
be incorrect and then, they were informed that since the factory was located
in Village Khairpura, an area quite independent of Sirsa area and only the
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081806
said area (Sirsa area) had been declared as the 'sparse area', therefore, the
petitioner-Company was liable to pay the Special Contribution for the period
from 01.07.1972 to 30.06.1973. Moreover, even Sirsa area had also been
excluded from the afore-mentioned category, vide the notification issued by
the Central Government on 01.01.1972.
4. The petitioners filed their replication wherein they reiterated
their earlier claim as canvassed in the petition, besides controverting the
assertions, as put-forth by the respondent in its written-reply. Then, the
parties were put to the trial by framing the issues and after appreciating and
evaluating the evidence as led by them on the record and hearing their
respective counsel, the ESI Court dismissed the above-referred petition, as
already indicated in the opening para of this judgment.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners as
well as learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation in this appeal and
have also gone through the record carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that vide the
letter Exhibit P-8 issued on 30.10.1972, the respondent had informed the
petitioner-Company that its factory did not stand covered under the Act and
it had, further, been advised not to pay the Employer's Special Contribution
anymore and therefore, the respondent could not have claimed the amount
in dispute from the petitioners on the afore-mentioned score and hence, the
order Exhibit P-3, as issued by the respondent for directing the petitioner-
Company to pay/deposit the above-said Contribution, was explicitly illegal
and moreover, this order amounted to the review of the afore-referred
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081806
order, as conveyed to the petitioner-Company earlier vide letter Exhibit P-8
but the petitioners had not been granted any opportunity by the respondent,
of being heard before passing the above-mentioned order, i.e Exhibit P-3
and it being so, they (petitioners) could not be fastened with the liability to
pay the amount in question and in these circumstances, it becomes crystal
clear that the impugned judgment is not legally sustainable and therefore, it
is liable to be set-aside. To buttress his contentions, he has placed reliance
upon the observations as made in Haryana State Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd Vs. Mawasi and Ors. Etc, 2012(7) SCC 200 (SC); Royal
Talkies Hyderabad and ors Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
through its Regional Director, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad, 1978 LAB. I. C.
1245 (SC); M/s. Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Employees State Insurance
Corporation, 1994(4) SCC (5) 346 (SC); Employees' State Insurance
Corporation Vs. M/s. U.P. Hotel and Restaurants Ltd. and another, 1975
LAB. I.C. 1025 (Allahabad); M/s DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs.
Employees Insurance Court, Delhi & Ors, 2008 LAB. I.C. 2894 (Delhi);
Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. M/s Nirbhai Roadways (P)
Ltd, 1992 LAB. I.C. 1437 (P&H); Asias Paints (India) Ltd. Vs. Employees'
State Insurance Corporation and another, 1981 LAB. I.C. 514 (Bombay);
Free India (Private) Ltd. Vs. The Regional Director, Employees' State
Insurance Corporation, Madras, 1973 LAB. I.C. 1540 (V6C 346) (Madras)
and The Andhra Pradesh Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Limited
Narayanaguda, Hyderabad Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation,
Hyderabad, 1988 LAB. I.C. 481 (Andhra Pradesh).
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081806
7. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that
the letter Exhibit P-8 had been issued by the respondent on the basis of the
information supplied by the petitioners to the effect that the factory was
situated in Sirsa area but later-on, it was found out to be located in Village
Khairpura and hence, the disputed amount had been demanded from the
petitioners vide the letter Exhibit P-3 and they (petitioners) had been duly
informed about the afore-narrated facts, by way of the letter Exhibit R-4,
issued on 25.09.1973 and thus, the impugned judgment is perfectly legal
and logical and the instant appeal deserves dismissal.
8. Though, vide letter Exhibit P-8, the respondent had informed
the petitioner-Company that the factory was not covered under the Act and
had advised it (petitioner-Company) not to pay the Employers' Special
Contribution anymore but the fact remains that it has also categorically been
mentioned therein that the respondent had so informed/advised, on the basis
of the facts disclosed by the petitioners themselves in letter Exhibit P-14
dated 03.10.1972. Then, Exhibit P-7 is the letter issued by the respondent to
the petitioner-Company on 06.04.1973 for seeking the information qua the
revenue demarcation of the factory, i.e the name of revenue village wherein
it was located and its Had Bast number etc. Further, in the letter Exhibit P-5
(also exhibited as R-4) sent by the respondent to the petitioner-Company on
25.09.1973, it has specifically been pointed out that while forwarding SC-1
Form, it (petitioner-Company) had disclosed that the factory was situated in
Sirsa area and though, this area had been declared to be 'sparse area' but
subsequently, the Insurance Inspector had reported that the factory was
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081806
located in Village Khairpur, away from and quite independent of Sirsa area
and was also having more than 500 employees and therefore, the petitioner-
Company was liable to pay/deposit the Employer's Special Contribution up
to 30.06.1973. To add to it, in Para No.6 in the letter Exhibit P-13 dated
27/30.05.1972 addressed by the petitioner-Company to the respondent, it
(petitioner-Company) itself has admitted that its liability to pay the Special
Contribution commenced from 01.01.1972. To cap it all, Mark 'A' is the
notification dated 20.04.1968 issued by the Competent Authority whereby
the petitioner-Company had been exempted from payment of Employer's
Special Contribution, as leviable under Chapter VA of the Act and Exhibit
P-11 is the notification dated 01.01.1972, regarding the withdrawal of the
above-mentioned exemption. In view of the afore-discussed facts and
circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to contend that
the order, conveyed vide letter Exhibit P-3, did amount to the review of the
order communicated to them earlier vide the letter Exhibit P-8 and that they
had not been given any opportunity by the respondent, of being heard, prior
to raising the demand of the above-referred amount in dispute.
9. The verdicts, as handed down in Haryana State Industrial
Development Corporation Ltd. (supra); Royal Talkies, Hyderabad and
others (supra) and M/s. Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd (supra), are of no avail to
the petitioners because the facts and circumstances of the afore-cited cases
are quite distinguishable from those of the present one. In Haryana State
Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (supra), the review petitions had
been dismissed on the ground that no Court or administrative authority or
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081806
quasi-judicial body could review its judgment or decision or order unless it
was legally empowered to do so but in the instant case, as discussed earlier,
order Exhibit P-3, as passed by the respondent, is not the outcome of any
review-petition and rather, it had been necessitated on account of the wrong
information as supplied by the petitioners qua the location of their factory
and moreover, they (petitioners) themselves had admitted their liability to
pay the Special Contribution vide the letter Exhibit P-13. In Royal Talkies,
Hyderabad and others (supra), the employers had disputed their liability
to pay the contribution but ultimately, they were held to be liable to pay the
same and the Apex Court had only directed for affording a fresh hearing to
the principal employers for assessment of the quantum of their contribution
whereas in the present case, the quantum of the contribution has not been
disputed by the petitioners. Then, in M/s. Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd (supra),
the dispute pertained to the delegation of the power, as conferred under
Section 85-B of the Act to recover the damages from the employers on
account of non-payment of the amount due towards any contribution under
the Act and its further delegation, in view of Section 94-A of the Act but in
the instant case, the dispute relates to the liability of the petitioners to pay
the Employer's Special Contribution under Section 73-A of the Act.
10. Further, the observations made in Employees' State Insurance
Corporation (supra); M/s. DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. (supra);
Employees State Insurance Corporation (supra); Asias Paints (India) Ltd.
(supra); Free India (Private) Ltd (supra) and The Andhra Pradesh
Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081806
(supra), are also of no help to the petitioners because in the present case, as
discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the petitioner-Company had been
informed, vide letter Exhibit P-5, about the grounds/reasons for fastening the
liability upon it to pay/deposit the Special Contribution, before passing the
order Exhibit P-3 and it had also been asked vide the letter Exhibit P-7 to
inform the respondent about the revenue demarcation of the factory but it
was not so in any of the above-referred cases.
11. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the
judgment under challenge, does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity
infirmity or perversity so as to call for any interference by this Court.
Resultantly, the same is, hereby, upheld and the appeal in hand, being sans
any merit, stands dismissed.
03.07.2024 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
neetu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
8 of 8
