Sree Ayyanar Spinning And v. Government Of India,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM in W.P.No.11219 of 2003 and W.M.P.No.34036 of 2017 Sree Ayyanar Spinning and Wearing Mills Ltd., Unit II, Iluppaikulam, Madurai District - 625 701, Rep. By its Manager S.Selvarajan ..Applicant Vs.
1.Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi, Rep. By its Deputy Secretary.
2.Employees State Insurance Corporation, Rep. By its Director General, New Delhi.
3.The Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 143, Sterling Road, Chennai - 600 034.
4.The Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Sub-Regional Officer, K.K. Nagar, Madurai - 625 020.
..Respondents 1/5
Prayer in Review Application No.699 of 2017: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C., read with Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.11219 of 2003 dated 29.06.2017.
Prayer in Writ Petition No.11219 of 2003: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent made in Notification No.Nil dated Nil and the consequential orders of the 4th respondent made in No.57/N/15/14/2/2002/BF/IMPLN/SRO/MDU dated 18.11.2002 and quash the same and restrain the respondents from implementing the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and also restraining the respondents from initiating any criminal or recovery proceedings in so far as the petitioner's establishment is concerned.
For Review Applicant : Ms.M.Rakshita For M/s.Kaavya Silambanan For R1 : Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy Central Government Standing Counsel 2/5
ORDER
The order dated 29.06.2017 passed in W.P.No.11219 of 2003 is sought to be reviewed in the present Review Application.
2. The petitioner is a Spinning and Wearing Mill and filed the review application on the ground that E.S.I Act will be made applicable to the petitioner only from the date of disposal of the writ petition.
3. This Court is of the considered opinion that once the applicability of the ESI Act is determined, then the claim of the petitioner that it is to be applied from the date of disposal of the writ petition is untenable and the competent authorities are bound to assess the contribution to be paid.
4. This Court dismissed the writ petition by stating that the E.S.I Act is applicable to the writ petitioner establishment. Therefore, the grounds raised in the review on merits cannot be adjudicated. The scope of review application cannot be expanded for adjudication of grounds raised on merits. This Court do not find any error apparent on record for the purpose of interfering with the order passed in the year 2017. 3/5
5. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any acceptable ground for the purpose of reviewing the order.
6. Accordingly, the Review Application No.699 of 2017 stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.04.2023 Index : Yes Speaking order kak 4/5
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak 21.04.2023 5/5