Madras High CourtCMA(MD)/588/2015partly allowed

J.S.Ramamurthy, v. The Recovery Officer,

2017-11-07Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:07.11.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN C.M.A.(MD).No.588 of 2015 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015 J.S.Ramamurthy ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs.

The Recovery Officer, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, No.143, Sterling Road, Chennai 84.

...Respondent/Respondent

PRAYER : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, against the Judgment and decree in E.S.I.O.P.No.76 of 2001, dated 19.12.2012 on the file of the Presiding Officer/District Judge, Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli.

For Appellant : Mr.M.Subash Babu For Respondent : Mr.K.C.Ramalingam Standing Counsel

JUDGMENT

The establishment has filed this appeal questioning the order dated 19.12.2012 dismissing E.S.I.O.P.No.76 of 2001, filed by the appellant questioning the recovery proceedings. A mere look at the documents marked on the side of the Transport Corporation would show that an order was passed under Section 45A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 , as early as on 28.05.1986. This order was marked as Ex.R.4 before the Employees' Insurance Court. When recovery proceedings were initiated the establishment at last woke up and filed E.S.I.O.PNo.76 of 2001 before the Labour Court at Thiruchirapalli.

2. The respondent herein filed a detailed counter. In their objection a specific ground was taken that the petition was hit by limitation. It was specifically pleaded that the order under Section 45-A was passed in the year 1986 and therefore the challenge must have been mounted within three years. Since the appellant failed to do so, it is not open to the appellant to impugn the recovery proceedings. It is true that in the petition, the appellant had also sought a declaration that the order under Section 45-A is illegal. Such clever wording of prayer cannot save the appellant from the mischief of limitation. The fact remains that the appellant did not approach the Court within three years from the date when the cause of action arose. The Employees' Insurance Court was therefore right in non suiting the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

appellant on the ground of maintainability as well as limitation. When there is no challenge to the order under Section 45-A of ESI Act, there cannot be a challenge to the consequential proceedings taken under Section 45(3) of ESA Act.

3. In this appeal no substantial question of law has arisen for determination.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Presiding Officer/District Judge, Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli.

2.The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to M/S.M.Subash Babu, Advocate SR.No. 85837 C.M.A.(MD).No.588 of 2015 07.11.2017 kmi JM/JC/SAR 4/28.11.2017/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/