Telangana High Court
J.Srinivasulu, I.E.Kallur, Kurnool ... vs Employees State Insurance ... on 10 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by
the conviction recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class to
try the Offences under the ESI Act and Chairman, Industrial
Tribunal-I at Hyderabad, in P.C.No.82 of 2003, dated 16.12.2011,
for the offences punishable under Section 85 (a) of the ESI Act.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant is
a public servant and that the accused is the Proprietor of M/s.Sri
Balaji Paper Board Industries, situated at Kallur, Kurnool District.
The said industry was a covered unit under the provisions of the
ESI Act with effect from 01.03.1992, and a code number vide 52
9554 84 has been allotted to facilitate the compliance under the
provisions of the ESI Act. The accused was the person-in-charge of
the said industry during the material time and he is the principal
employer. As per the ESI Act, every Principal employer is liable to
pay both shares of contributions, i.e., the employer share of the
contribution, as well as the employee share of the contribution in
the first instance, and later, entitled to recover the same from the
wages of the employees. The accused failed to pay the
contributions for the period April, 1996 to September, 2000.
Therefore, a show cause notice was issued on 11.11.2002 to the
accused, calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not
be prosecuted for the non-compliance under the provisions of the
ESI Act. Further, the complainant Corporation passed an order
under Section 45-A, determining the contributions payable by the
accused as Rs.56,369/-. The complainant stated that inspite of
the show cause notice, no payment was made. The Joint Director,
who has been authorized by the ESI Corporation, accorded
permission for prosecution on 30.06.2003. As the accused failed
to comply with the provisions of the ESI Act, the present
complaint is filed against the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 85(a) of the ESI Act.
3. The main ground urged by the appellant before the Court
below is that he is not the Proprietor of M/s.Balaji Paper Board
Industries, but, one Girish Yadav is the owner of the said
Industry. Mr.Girish Yadav purchased the said Industry in the year
1995, and as a principal employer, Girish Yadav is liable to pay
the contributions to the ESI Corporation.
4. However, no one was examined to show that the company
was sold to Mr.Girish Yadav. In fact, said Girish Yadav was also
not examined by the appellant before the Court below.
5. In the said circumstances, the Court below found that the
appellant is liable, and accordingly, convicted him.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the litigation
pertains to the year 2002, and nearly 23 years have passed by.
Further, the appellant is now aged above 50 years and has
dependents to look after.
7. Considering the said submission of the learned counsel,
while maintaining the conviction, the sentence of imprisonment of
the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Fine component remains unaltered.
8. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 10.03.2025
tk
