THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR REGIONAL OFFICE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CORPORATION, THRISSUR Vs. M/S. CHAITHANYA PAINTS AGASTHIYA NAGAR KUREEKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment in I.C. No. 3/2008 of the Employees' Insurance Court (for short 'E.I. Court'), Alappuzha by the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation (for short 'E.S.I. Corporation'). The respondent in this appeal approached the E.I. Court seeking a declaration that he is eligible to get the contribution for the period from 4/2003 to 9/2005 assessed on actual basis and to get refund of excess contribution and interest realised from him and that the imposition and realisation of 14,642/- as damages by ? way of penalty for the delayed payment of contribution for the above period is arbitrary and unsustainable. The E.I. Court declared that the respondent is not eligible to get reassessed the contribution for the period from 4/2003 to 9/2005 and get any refund on that basis and he is liable to pay Rs,.6,893/- by way of interest in respect of rs. 41,785/- being contribution for the period from 4/2003 to 9/2005. It was also declared that the action of charging damages for the delayed payment is unsustainable and directed the appellant to adjust the amount towards interest and if no such dues are there, the amount shall be refunded to the respondent. Being aggrieved by that, the Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation preferred this appeal.

(2.) The respondent is an establishment covered under Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act (for short 'E.S.I. Act'). There was delay in payment of an amount of 41,785/- towards E.S.I. Contribution from 4/2003 to 9/2005. The Insurance Inspector of the appellant inspected the premises and detected non-payment of contributions. Accordingly, the appellant issued show cause notices including proposing to launch criminal prosecution against the respondent. Subsequently, the above dispute was settled by the respondent as per the Amnesty Scheme implemented by the appellant. Based on that, the appellant withdrew the criminal prosecution. Thereafter, the respondent approached the E.I.Court with the above I.C contending that the appellant collected huge amount as contribution on adhoc basis, which is higher than the actual contribution. The E.S.I. Corporation filed objection and contended that sufficient opportunity was given to the respondent under Amnesty Scheme and for the delayed payment, the appellant is entitled to get damages. On the basis of Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 (for short 'Regulations'), the appellant imposed the damages. There is no illegality. Both parties did not adduce oral evidence, but the respondent alone produced documentary evidence, which were marked as Exts. D-1 to D-11.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that if an employer fails to pay contribution within the period specified under Regulations, the E.S.I. Corporation may recover the charges not exceeding the rate mentioned in the Regulations. As per Ext.-D11, the amount was mentioned and proper notice was served on the respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the above amount was fixed without hearing him.