Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '731563',
			'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
			'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '731563',
		(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '731563',
		'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
		'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p>85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '731563',
	(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/731563/regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '731563',
			'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
			'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '731563',
		(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '731563',
		'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
		'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p>85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '731563',
	(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/731563/regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894 section 54; [v.k. bali, cj, kurian joseph & k. balakrishnan nair, jj] appeal court fee payable held, court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '731563',
			'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
			'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '731563',
		(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '731563',
		'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
		'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p>85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '731563',
	(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/731563/regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '731563',
			'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
			'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '731563',
		(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '731563',
		'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
		'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p>85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '731563',
	(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/731563/regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

j.b. koshy, j.1. whether damages imposed under section 85-b of the employees' state insurance act, 1948 (in short 'the act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of section 93-a, is the issue to be decided in this case. m/s. calicut modern spinning and weaving mills ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the act was purchased by m/s. k.k. patodia and associates with effect from 11.12.1989. before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. by orders ext b-2 dated 21.12.1987, ext. b-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and ext. b-20 dated 2.6.1989, the e.s.i. corporation issued damages under section 85-b of the act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. the above orders were passed.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '731563',
			'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
			'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '731563',
		(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '731563',
		'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
		'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p>85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '731563',
	(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/731563/regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>85-B. Power to recover damages:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:',
	(int) 9 => '<p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

J.B. Koshy, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '731563',
			'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
			'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '731563',
		(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '731563',
		'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
		'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p>85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '731563',
	(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/731563/regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>85-B. Power to recover damages:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:',
	(int) 9 => '<p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '731563',
			'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
			'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '731563',
		(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '731563',
		'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
		'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p>85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '731563',
	(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/731563/regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>85-B. Power to recover damages:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:',
	(int) 9 => '<p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '731563',
			'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
			'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '731563',
		(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '731563',
		'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
		'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p>85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '731563',
	(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/731563/regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>85-B. Power to recover damages:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:',
	(int) 9 => '<p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

85-B. Power to recover damages:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '731563',
			'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
			'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '731563',
		(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '731563',
		'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
		'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p>85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '731563',
	(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/731563/regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>85-B. Power to recover damages:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:',
	(int) 9 => '<p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '731563',
			'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
			'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '731563',
		(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '731563',
		'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
		'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p>85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '731563',
	(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/731563/regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>85-B. Power to recover damages:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:',
	(int) 9 => '<p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '731563',
			'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
			'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '731563',
		(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '731563',
		'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
		'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p>85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '731563',
	(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/731563/regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>85-B. Power to recover damages:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:',
	(int) 9 => '<p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '731563',
			'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
			'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '731563',
		(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '731563',
		'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
		'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p>85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '731563',
	(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/731563/regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>85-B. Power to recover damages:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:',
	(int) 9 => '<p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '731563',
			'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
			'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '731563',
		(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '731563',
		'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
		'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p>85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '731563',
	(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/731563/regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>85-B. Power to recover damages:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:',
	(int) 9 => '<p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '731563',
			'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
			'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '731563',
		(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '731563',
		'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
		'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p>85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '731563',
	(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/731563/regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>85-B. Power to recover damages:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:',
	(int) 9 => '<p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '731563',
			'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
			'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '731563',
		(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '731563',
		'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
		'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p>85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '731563',
	(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/731563/regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>85-B. Power to recover damages:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:',
	(int) 9 => '<p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '731563',
			'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
			'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '731563',
		(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '731563',
		'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
		'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p>85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '731563',
	(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/731563/regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>85-B. Power to recover damages:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:',
	(int) 9 => '<p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '731563',
			'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
			'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '731563',
		(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Regional Director E S I Corporation Vs Pradeep Kumar - Citation 731563 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '731563',
		'acts' => 'Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar',
		'casenote' => ' - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
[C.A. No. 1/1894
	Section 54; [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Appeal  Court fee payable  Held, Court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' K. Anand, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-08-11',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.</p><p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.</p><p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:</p><p>85-B. Power to recover damages:</p><p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:</p><p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:</p><p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.</p><p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.</p><p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:</p><p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;</p><p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.</p><p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2005(107)FLR1209]',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pradeep Kumar',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '731563',
	(int) 1 => 'regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/731563/regional-director-e-s-corporation-vs-pradeep-kumar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>J.B. Koshy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were demanded, respondent approached the Employees Insurance Court. The E.I. Court held that arrears of contribution, if any, and statutory interest can be realised from the transferee employer and damages being penal proceedings cannot be realised from the transferee employer. That being a penalty has to be realised from the transferor employer by revenue recovery or any other means.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. It is true that power to impose and recover damages under Section 85-B fur non-payment of contribution in time is a penal provision. Chapter-VII of the Act provides various types of penalties. Sections 85 and 85-A provide punishments for non-payment of contribution. Apart front the imposition of punishment of imprisonment and fine under sections 85 and 85-A, Section 85-B entitles the Corporation to impose damages. Section 85-B reads as follows:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>85-B. Power to recover damages:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(1) Where an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as may be specified in the regulations:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Provided further that the Corporation may reduce or waive the damages recoverable under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in regulations.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue or under Section 45-C to Section 45-I.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>3. There is no dispute for the proposition that imposition of damages is a penal proceedings. The section itself says it as a 'penalty'. It can be imposed over and above the levy of interest payable under Section 68. Imposition of damages is penal in nature and it can be imposed only by speaking order as held by the Apex Court in Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 690. It is true that for the default of payment of contribution by the previous employer, transferee-employee cannot be imprisoned. But, damages computed and imposed is a financial liability on the transferor. Section 93-A reads as follows:',
	(int) 9 => '<p>93A. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:-Where an employer, in relation to a factory or establishment, transfers that factory or establishment in whole or in part, by sale] gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the factory or establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act in respect of the periods up to date or such transfer;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>4. It shows that any amount due at the time of transfer can be recovered from the transferee employer. Both transferor employer and transferee employer are jointly and severally liable. Merely because damages are penal in nature, it cannot be excluded from the words 'any other amount payable under the Act in respect of the periods upto the date of transfer' and can be recovered jointly and severally front the transferee and/or transferor, though the liability of the transferee is limited to the value of the transferred assets. In view of the clear provision of Section 93-A, damages already computed in terms of money, imposed on the transferor employer can be recovered from the transferee employer also. Hence, the impugned order of the Employees Insurance Court in so far as it recovered from the transferee employer is set aside. Appeal allowed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Service
Court	Kerala High Court
Decided On	Aug-11-2005
Case Number	M.F.A. No. 989 of 1997
Judge	J.B. Koshy and; K.R. Udayabhanu, JJ.
Reported in	[2005(107)FLR1209]
Acts	Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45C-45I, 68, 85, 85A, 85B and 93A; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 4
Appellant	Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation
Respondent	Pradeep Kumar
Appellant Advocate	T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	K. Anand, Adv.
Disposition	Appeal allowed
Cases Referred	Presolite Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Der

Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar - Court Judgment