Telangana High Court
The Employees State Insurance ... vs M/S.Compass Group India on 15 July, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
C.M.A.No.592 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
The present appeal has been filed challenging the
impugned order dated 28.03.2023 passed in E.I.C.No.22 of
2015 by the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman,
Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad.
2. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has
allowed the petition filed by respondent No.1 herein under
Section 75(1)(g) of ESI Act (for short, the Act), by setting aside
the order passed by the Corporation under Section 45(A)
dated 19.09.2014.
3. The admitted factual matrix what is reflected is that
notices were initially sent to the company named Ultimate
Hospitality Services Private Limited. The said company got
merged with respondent No.1 with effect from 22.07.2013
i.e., the order passed by the High Court of Madras in respect
of the merger. Though the company stood merged with effect
from 22.07.2013 and the name of the company became
M/s. Compass Group (India) Support Services Private
Limited, ESI Corporation issued notices to the Ultimate
Hospitality Services Private Limited on 05.11.2013,
29.05.2014 and 19.09.2014. All these notices were issued
to Ultimate Hospitality Services Private Limited, which
already stood merged into M/s. Compass Group (India)
Support Services Private Limited. The initial notice dated
05.11.2013 was duly honored by Ultimate Hospitality
Services Private Limited, as the said firm was operational
under the said head for some time.
4. The present is an appeal under Section 82(2) of the Act.
However, as regards the subsequent notices issued on
29.05.2014 and the revised one on 19.09.2014, respondent
No.1 company herein entered appearance and informed that
on account of the merger of the company, all the subsequent
compliances have been done at the Chennai and the entire
payments due to the ESI Corporation was made at the office
of the Corporation at Chennai. The payments so made by
respondent No.1 company through the Chennai office has not
been contraverted or disputed by the ESI Corporation even in
the present appeal that they have preferred. It appears that
the Corporation seems to be more aggrieved by the fact that
the event of merger of Ultimate Hospitality Services Private
Limited having not been intimated to the Corporation which
was the requirement under the Act and it was on this that the
notice issued finally ended up in the order passed under
Section 45(A) dated 19.09.2014 which was subjected to
challenge under Section 75(1)(g) of the Act before the learned
Tribunal.
5. A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that
the learned Tribunal has gone into the factual matrix of the
case including that weather there is default of non-
compliance of the statutory provisions of the Act by
respondent No.1 company and finally has reached to the
conclusion that since the entire compliances after merger has
been taken care off at Chennai and the entire deposits also
being made through the Chennai office, there is no default as
such, therefore, the order under Section 45(A) was set aside.
6. Section 82 (2) of the Act provides for a remedy of an
appeal challenging the order of the learned Tribunal.
However, the mandatory requirement is that there has to be a
substantial question of law made out.
7. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, what has clearly
culled out is that the entire averments which have been
raised by the appellants in the present appeal are all factual
in nature which have already been deliberated and dealt with
by the learned Tribunal. As such, we do not find any
substantial question of law made out.
8. Accordingly, the appeal fails and stands rejected. No
order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if
any, shall stand closed.
____________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
____________________________
SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, J
Date: 15.07.2024
PVT
