VISKAAN ASSOCIATES Vs. ISRO SATELLITE CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of common order dated 21.11.2009 passed in ESI Application Nos. 20/2008 to 22/2008 on the file of Employees State Insurance Court at Bangalore. Brief facts leading to these three appeals are as under:

(2.) It is seen that pursuant to demand notice which was issued, entire contribution it appears is paid by principal employer i.e., ISRO Satellite Centre within whose premises the employees of appellant were working. It is seen that there is some delay in payment of contribution. Hence, four notices came to be issued. Two for recovery of damages under Section 85(b) of ESI Act for the period from April 2000 to March 2002 and April 2002 to October 2003. However, in respect of demand which was raised for recovery of interest as contemplated under Section 39(5) of ESI Act two separate notices were issued for the similar period. It is seen that being aggrieved by the same appellant had filed three Applications before ESI Court, i.e., ESI Application No. 20/2008 in respect of interest and ESI Application Nos. 21/2008 and 22/2008 in respect of damages.

(3.) In the said proceedings, after hearing all the three Applications which were filed under Section 75 of ESI Act, after considering the documents available on record and after recording the evidence on the issues framed therein, the ESI Court has come to the conclusion that employees who were working in first respondent premises are basically employees of appellant who are covered under the provisions of ESI Act. Since said employees were working within the premises of first respondent, first respondent was considered as principal employer and appellant was considered as immediate employer and as provided under Section 40 of ESI Act the contribution, interest and damages should be recovered from either principal employer or immediate employer by ESI Corporation. If recovery is from principal employer it is stated that principal employer would have right to recover the same from immediate employer in exercise of its power for recovery under Section 41 of ESI Act. Being aggrieved by the said common order the appellant has come up in these three appeals. Heard the Counsel for appellant and contesting respondent. Perused the order impugned with reference to material evidence available on record. On going through the same, it is clearly seen that primary responsibility to pay contribution is on the immediate employer who is covered under the provisions of ESI Act, which is appellant in the instant case. In that view of mater, even if earlier contribution is received from first respondent/ISRO Satellite Centre, it is open for first respondent to recover said contribution from the immediate employer, appellant herein. In that view of mater, the common order dated 21.11.2009 passed in ESI Application Nos. 20/2008 to 22/2008 in directly seeking recovery of damages and interest from immediate employer i.e., appellant pursuant to notices issued by ESI Corporation, which were subject matter therein, appears to be just and proper, inasmuch as, there being neither irregularity nor illegality in the said order. Hence, question of considering the same in these appeals does not arise. Accordingly, these three appeals are dismissed.