Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against ESI Corporation for Non-Speaking Order and Failure to Furnish Inspection Reports. Employees' Insurance Court directed to determine contributions afresh after providing copies of inspection reports to the employer.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 124
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Supreme Industries Limited, an establishment governed under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, filed an appeal under Section 82 of the Act against an order of the Employees' Insurance Court. The appellant had filed an application under Section 75 of the ESI Act challenging contributions demanded by the ESI Corporation for the period between 1994 to 1996-97 under several heads of accounts. The Employees' Insurance Court rejected the appellant's grounds, but the appellant contended that the order was passed in gross ignorance of law and evidence. The appellant argued that the Corporation failed to discharge its burden of proof, and that the Insurance Inspector had visited the premises on several occasions and prepared reports, but copies of those reports were not furnished to the appellant, depriving it of the opportunity to defend itself. The appellant also relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bhopal vs. Central Press, AIR 1977 SC 1351, which held that the Corporation should gather information under Section 45A and apprise the court, and that the Employees' Insurance Court must determine the basis of calculation. The High Court found that the impugned order was not a speaking order, as it did not explain how the figures under different heads were arrived at. The Court held that fairness required that copies of inspection reports be provided to the appellant. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Employees' Insurance Court for fresh adjudication after providing copies of the inspection reports to the appellant and giving both parties an opportunity to be heard.

Headnote

A) Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Section 75 - Adjudication of Disputes - Speaking Order - The Employees' Insurance Court must pass a reasoned and speaking order when determining contributions payable by an employer. The impugned order was set aside as it did not mention how conclusions were arrived at under different heads of accounts. (Paras 1-3)

B) Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Section 45A - Determination of Contributions - Burden of Proof - The ESI Corporation has the duty to gather information under Section 45A and apprise the Employees' Insurance Court of the basis of calculation. The Corporation failed to discharge its burden. (Paras 1-2)

C) Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Natural Justice - Inspection Reports - Fairness requires that copies of inspection reports prepared by the Insurance Inspector be furnished to the employer to enable effective defence. The Corporation did not provide such copies. (Paras 1-2)

D) Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Section 82 - Appeal - The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Employees' Insurance Court for fresh adjudication after providing copies of inspection reports to the appellant. (Para 3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Employees' Insurance Court erred in rejecting the appellant's application under Section 75 of the ESI Act without a speaking order and without considering that the respondent Corporation failed to discharge its burden and furnish inspection reports to the appellant.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 30th November 2012 passed by the learned Judge of the Employees' Insurance Court, Mumbai is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Employees' Insurance Court for fresh adjudication after providing copies of the inspection reports to the appellant and giving both parties an opportunity to be heard. The Employees' Insurance Court is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law within six months from the date of receipt of the order. Civil Application No.747 of 2013 is disposed of accordingly.

Law Points

  • Burden of proof on ESI Corporation to establish basis of contributions
  • Duty of Employees' Insurance Court to pass speaking order
  • Right of employer to receive copies of inspection reports
  • Section 45A ESI Act for determination of contributions
  • Section 75 ESI Act for adjudication of disputes
  • Section 82 ESI Act for appeal
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (09) 115

First Appeal No.206 of 2013 with Civil Application No.747 of 2013

2013-09-16

A. P. Bhangale, J.

Mr. P. M. Bhagat for the Appellant, Mr. Shailesh S. Pathak for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2

Supreme Industries Limited

E. S. I. Corporation and The Recovery Officer

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 against an order of the Employees' Insurance Court rejecting the appellant's application under Section 75 of the Act.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to set aside the order of the Employees' Insurance Court and to have the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after being furnished with copies of inspection reports.

Filing Reason

The appellant challenged contributions demanded by the ESI Corporation for the period 1994 to 1996-97, alleging that the Employees' Insurance Court passed a non-speaking order and ignored that the Corporation failed to discharge its burden and did not provide inspection reports.

Previous Decisions

The Employees' Insurance Court rejected the appellant's application under Section 75 of the ESI Act.

Issues

Whether the Employees' Insurance Court's order was a speaking order? Whether the ESI Corporation failed to discharge its burden of proof? Whether the appellant was entitled to copies of inspection reports?

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the impugned order was not a speaking order and did not explain how conclusions were arrived at under different heads of accounts. The appellant argued that the respondent Corporation failed to discharge its burden and did not furnish copies of inspection reports, depriving the appellant of the opportunity to defend. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court ruling in ESI Corporation vs. Central Press, AIR 1977 SC 1351, which held that the Corporation must gather information under Section 45A and apprise the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Employees' Insurance Court must pass a speaking order and the ESI Corporation has the duty to furnish inspection reports to the employer to ensure fairness. The burden of proof lies on the Corporation to establish the basis of contributions under Section 45A of the ESI Act.

Judgment Excerpts

The learned Judge did not mention as to how conclusions were arrived at the figures mentioned in the impugned order under different heads of accounts. Fairness required that when detailed reports in respect of various inspections made on various dates were submitted by the Insurance Inspector, and the appellant was not furnished with copies thereof, the appellant could not defend the proceeding.

Procedural History

The appellant filed an application under Section 75 of the ESI Act before the Employees' Insurance Court challenging contributions for the period 1994 to 1996-97. The Employees' Insurance Court rejected the application. The appellant then filed the present appeal under Section 82 of the ESI Act before the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948: Section 45A, Section 75, Section 82, Section 99A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Charge-Sheet Against Forest Officers in Abetment of Suicide Case — No Proximate Link Between Alleged Acts and Suicide. Suicide Note Did Not Name Petitioners; Allegations of Harassment Vague and Unsubstantiated, Not Attract...
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order for Lack of Material Showing Threat to Public Order. Detention under Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 set aside as mere registration of FIRs does not establish disturbance of...