JANATHA BAZAR, A UNIT OF KARNATAKA CONSUMERS CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION, REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT Vs. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE dated 30.12.1999 issued by the Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Bangalore was challenged by the appellant in ESI Application No. 4/2001 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal and E.I. Court at Bangalore and by its order dated 19.4.2003, the Insurance Court dismissed the application against which, he preferred this appeal.

(2.) BEFORE the Insurance Court, it was contended that by its notice dated 30.12.1999, the applicant was asked to pay Rs. 1,02,952/ - towards contribution payable in respect of Security Agencies and building repairs for the period from January, 1985 to March, 1996. Pursuant to the said notice, the applicant resisted and further requested to grant time to search for the old records and to contact the Security Agencies in order to know the terms and conditions of agreement between the appellant and the Security Agencies and his complaint is that the authority without giving sufficient opportunity, passed an order dated 22.8.2000 under Section 45 -A of the ESI Act, asking the applicant to pay the contribution of Rs. 74,457/ -. According to the appellant herein, the said action on the part of the respondent -the Regional Director, ESI Corporation is contrary to law and facts. He preferred an application before the Insurance Court under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act. The Insurance Court by its order dated 19.4.2003 dismissed the application. The appellant has taken a ground that without affording full opportunity to the appellant, the Insurance Court dismissed the application. The order passed by the Insurance Court as per Annexure -A is capricious, whimsical and devoid of merits.

(3.) IN the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondent, I have gone through the impugned order passed by the Insurance Court and I find that there are no infirmities and illegalities committed by the Court in denying opportunity to the appellant. When the appellant himself abstained from hearing before the Insurance Court and not utilised the opportunities given on his request, it is not open for him to allege that opportunity has been denied by the Insurance Court. In view of the fact that the appellant himself is a defaulter before the Insurance Court in not appearing before it, it is not open for him to make allegations against the Insurance Court. Accordingly I find no justification in interfering with the order. Hence, I pass the following: