M/S. P.M.Enterprise (Cal) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Employees State Insurance Corporation and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1092722
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided OnSep-26-2013
JudgeI. P. MUKERJI
AppellantM/S. P.M.Enterprise (Cal) Pvt. Ltd.
RespondentThe Employees State Insurance Corporation and ors.
Excerpt:
order sheet wp no.68 of 2013 in the high court at calcutta constitutional writ jurisdiction original side m/s.p.m.enterprise (cal) pvt.ltd.versus the employees state insurance corporation & ors.before: the hon'ble justice i.p.mukerj.date : 26th september, 2013. appearance: mr.saumya majumdar, advocate the court: the petitioner is a contractor. it does certain works for cesc ltd.on being awarded contracts to this effect. according to the writ petitioner, they are not covered by the employees state insurance act, 1948 for the principal reason that the writ petitioner and not anybody else controls their employees. the principal employer, cesc ltd., was not covered under the said act, it was submitted. nevertheless a show cause notice was issued by esi authorities to the petitioner on the ground of non-deposit of contribution under the esi act, 1948. an order was passed upholding the show cause. the writ petitioner challenged it by way of a writ application in this court (wp no.456 of 2012, m/s.p.m.enterprises (cal) pvt.ltd.–versus employees’ state insurance corporation & ors.).in that writ aniruddha bose, j., passed an order on 23rd july, 2012, directing the authorities to consider the matter afresh. it appears from the submissions made and from the records that instead of reconsidering the matter the esi authorities have started taking coercive steps against the writ petitioner to recover the above claim. my attention was drawn to a garnishee order dated 18th december, 2012 (signed on 29th november 2012) under section 14(a) of the said act which is annexure 9 at page 49 of the petition. in my opinion, this is a most outrageous act on the part of esi authorities. they were required to consider the matter; instead they have taken the law into their own hands and started recovery proceedings. they have not complied with aniruddha bose, j.’s, direction as stated above. for those reasons, the order of the recovery officer, employees state insurance corporation, dated 18th december, 2012, and signed on 29th november, 2012, is set aside. the writ application is allowed by also passing an order in terms of prayer (a).(c) and (d) of the petition. it is expected that esi authorities will make a proper determination in terms of the order of aniruddha bose, j., dated 23rd july, 2012, and the observations made today by this court by way of a reasoned order to be made and communicated within three months from the date of issue of a copy of this order. steps can only be taken thereafter, according to law. all parties concerned to act on a signed photocopy of this order upon the usual undertakings. g/ (i.p.mukerji, j.)
Judgment:

ORDER

SHEET WP No.68 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.P.M.ENTERPRISE (CAL) PVT.LTD.Versus THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 26th September, 2013.

Appearance: Mr.Saumya Majumdar, Advocate The Court: The petitioner is a contractor.

It does certain works for CESC LTD.on being awarded contracts to this effect.

According to the writ petitioner, they are not covered by the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 for the principal reason that the writ petitioner and not anybody else controls their employees.

The principal employer, CESC Ltd., was not covered under the said act, it was submitted.

Nevertheless a show cause notice was issued by ESI authorities to the petitioner on the ground of non-deposit of contribution under the ESI Act, 1948.

An order was passed upholding the show cause.

The writ petitioner challenged it by way of a writ application in this Court (WP No.456 of 2012, M/S.P.M.Enterprises (Cal) PVT.LTD.–versus Employees’ State Insurance Corporation & Ors.).In that writ Aniruddha Bose, J., passed an order on 23rd July, 2012, directing the authorities to consider the matter afresh.

It appears from the submissions made and from the records that instead of reconsidering the matter the ESI authorities have started taking coercive steps against the writ petitioner to recover the above claim.

My attention was drawn to a garnishee order dated 18th December, 2012 (signed on 29th November 2012) under Section 14(a) of the said Act which is annexure 9 at page 49 of the petition.

In my opinion, this is a most outrageous act on the part of ESI authorities.

They were required to consider the matter; instead they have taken the law into their own hands and started recovery proceedings.

They have not complied with Aniruddha Bose, J.’s, direction as stated above.

For those reasons, the order of the Recovery Officer, Employees State Insurance Corporation, dated 18th December, 2012, and signed on 29th November, 2012, is set aside.

The writ application is allowed by also passing an order in terms of prayer (a).(c) and (d) of the petition.

It is expected that ESI authorities will make a proper determination in terms of the order of Aniruddha Bose, J., dated 23rd July, 2012, and the observations made today by this Court by way of a reasoned order to be made and communicated within three months from the date of issue of a copy of this order.

Steps can only be taken thereafter, according to law.

All parties concerned to act on a signed photocopy of this order upon the usual undertakings.

G/ (I.P.MUKERJI, J.)