ANTHONYKUTTY Vs. E S I CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the recipient of benefits under the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (the Act for short) while employed as a working charge-man in the Transformers and Electrical, Kerala Ltd.. Angamaly. He met with an accident on December 29, 1980 in respect of which he was given a temporary disablement benefit of Rs. 1200/- and a permanent disablement benefit of Rs. 4823.45 by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, the first respondent, (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation).

(2.) Long afterwards, and on February 17, 1983, he was intimated by the letter Ext. P1 from the Corporation that he was not an employee covered under S.2(9) of the Act on the date of the accident and that "ESI contributions" were not payable by him. As such, it was stated that he was not entitled to the payments made of temporary and permanent disablement benefits. The petitioner was therefore requested to refund the amount of Rs. 6023.45 within one month failing which revenue recovery action was threatened under S.70 of the Act without further notice. The petitioner thereupon made representations to his employer, wherein he stated that he bad approached the Corporation and availed the benefits on the advice of the employer and that the latter had suppressed the fact that his actual wages were more than Rs. 1000/-. The petitioner's further case was that "had not the Company represented the facts mistakenly" he would not have gone to the Corporation and availed the benefits, and therefore the entire benefit availed should be borne by the employer. Copy of the representation was sent to the Corporation also. There was no response to this representation.

(3.) The Corporation initiated proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the amount. Notice Ext. P4 was issued under S.7 of the said Act. The petitioner thereupon filed this original petition. His contention is that the claim arises under S.70 and there should be an adjudication of the claim and of the liability by the Employees' Insurance Court (the Court for short) under S.75(2)(e) before any proceedings can be initiated for realisation of the amount under S.70(3). In other words the contention put forward is that the Corporation is bound to approach the Court for an adjudication of the claim as a condition precedent for recovery of the amount.