MANAGEMENT OF ADYAR ANAND BHAVAN SWEETS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE (KARNATAKA) EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, which claims that it is a partnership firm engaged in the business of preparation/manufacturing of sweets and selling of such sweets through its 30 outlets situated all over the State of Karnataka, has sought for a writ of Certiorari, for quashing the Sanction Order dated 22.07.2013 issued by the respondent as at Annexure-K and also quashing of private complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner herein, dated 25.07.2013, as per Annexure-L.

(2.) The summary of the private complaint which is at Annexure-L is that the complainant which is Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation" for the sake of brevity) has alleged that the present petitioner who is accused in the said complaint has not extended its cooperation and assistance in the employees of the accused getting the photographs for issuance of identity card by ESI department, as such, there is violation of Regulation 16 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "ESI Regulations" for the sake of brevity), as such, an offence under Section 85(g) which is punishable under Section 85(ii) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "ESI Act" for the sake of brevity) has been committed.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner as well the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no specific allegation as to in what way there was no assistance from the petitioner-accused and in what way there was violation of Section 85(g) of the ESI Act. It is further the argument that at the maximum, the employer can only request its employees to go to the ESI office and pose for photograph to prepare identity card. All such sincere efforts were made by the petitioner. Apart from that the petitioner-accused has also sent several e-mails to the respondent-Corporation requesting them to hold the camps in their (of the petitioner's) several of the branches, as such, the task of taking photographs of thousands of employees can be completed at the earliest. Despite which, there is no response from the respondent-Corporation. On the contrary, the Corporation has issued a show-cause notice alleging false allegation of no assistance from the petitioner-Firm.