The Sriman Madhwa Sidhantha v. Employees State Insurance

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.03.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM C.M.A.No.1962 of 2018 C.M.P.No.15264 of 2018 The Sriman Madhwa Sidhantha Onnahini Permanent Nidhi Ltd., (The S.M.S.O. Permanent Nidhi Ltd.) 37, Car Street, Triplicane, Chennai-600 005.

Rep.by its Executive Officer.

..

Appellant/Petitioner vs.

The Employees State Insurance Corporation, Rep.by its Deputy Director, 143, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

.. Respondents/Respondent PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82 (2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act 34 of 1948, against the order and decree dated 29.12.2017 in E.I.O.P.No.27 of 2005 passed by the learned Judge, Principal Labour Court, (Employees' Insurance Court), Chennai confirming the order dated 06.01.2005 passed by the respondent ESI Corporation.

For Appellant : Mr.C.R.Prasanan For Respondents :Mr.K.Prabhakar

J U D G M E N T

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order and decree dated 29.12.2017 in E.I.O.P.No.27 of 2005 passed by the learned Judge, Principal Labour Court, (Employees' Insurance Court), Chennai confirming the order dated 06.01.2005 passed by the respondent ESI Corporation.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly contended that the Employees Insurance Court has extracted the pleadings of the parties and dismissed the appeal without any adjudication or findings with reference to the issues as well as the evidence produced by the parties.

3. On perusal of the order, it reveals that in 13 page judgment, upto paragraph No.13, pleadings are extracted. In

paragraph No.14, the Employees Insurance Court arrived a conclusion that the appellant is bound the pay the amount claimed by the respondent. It is further stated that on perusal of the records, the claim of the respondent is rightful and legally valid. Except the general observation, the Employees Insurance Court has not decided the issues with reference to the documents and evidence produced by the parties. Appeals under Section 75 of the ESI Act are to be adjudicated on merits and in accordance with law and by affording opportunity to the parties. The appeal being a first appeal, the factual aspects are to be considered and the findings are to be arrived by the Employees Insurance Court. However, in the present case, no such exercise has been done by the Employees Insurance Court. Contrarily, the pleadings were recorded and the petition was dismissed by merely stating that the claim of the respondent is rightful and legally valid. Such finding is insufficient for the purpose of satisfying the application of mind to be exercised.

4. This being the factum, this Court is of the opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded back for re-consideration. Accordingly, the order dated 29.12.2017 in E.I.O.P.No.27 of 2005 passed by the learned Judge, Employees' Insurance Court, (Principal Labour Court), Chennai confirming the order dated 06.01.2005 passed by the respondent ESI Corporation is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Employees Insurance Court [Principal Labour Court], Chennai for fresh adjudication and by affording opportunity to all the parties and dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS IV ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar ssb

To 1.The Judge, Principal Labour Court, (Employees' Insurance Court), Chennai. 2.The Deputy Director, The Employees State Insurance Corporation, 143, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

+1 cc to Mr.K.Prabakar advocate sr 14957 +1 cc to Mr..R.Prassanan Advocate sr15133 C.M.A.No.1962 of 2018 aa09/04/2021