HAFEEZ MOTOR TRANSPORT PUDUKOTTAI Vs. DEPUTY REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the proceedings of the respondent dated 8. 7. 1994, directing the petitioner to pay E.S.I. Contributions totalling Rs. 1, 33, 420 for the period from 1983-84 to 1990-91 together with interest at 12 per cent for each day of further default from the date of the said order, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, it is a partnership firm and is running Public Transport in Pudukottai. The petitioner who had initially about 4-5 employees on its rolls engaged a maximum of 18 persons when it had the four route permits. While so, the respondent herein called upon the petitioner before him for a personal hearing on 27. 5. 1991 for the purpose of determining the contribution payable by the petitioner for the period from 1983-84 to 1990-91. On 27. 5. 1991, the petitioner filed its representation contending that the number of employees employed by it in its establishment was far below the minimum strength required for the purpose of coverage under the Employees' State Insurance Act.

(3.) HOWEVER, it is specifically stated that subsequently the counsel approached the respondent and sought for a further date of hearing and according to the petitioner, the respondent informed the petitioner's counsel that future date of hearing will be fixed and intimation will be sent to them. HOWEVER, the respondent had passed the impugned order on 8. 7. 1994 without referring to the representation and objection of the petitioner, even though the same were filed by them at the earliest point of time. After taking me through the order of the respondent in passing the order dated 8. 7. 1994, Mr. Karthick, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the action of the respondent in passing the order dated 8. 7. 1994 was in gross violation of principles of natural justice, highly arbitrary and unjustified. He also contended that in view of the fact that the impugned order of the respondent is liable to be quashed on the ground of principles of natural justice and in total lack of jurisdiction, there is no need to go before the E.S.I. Court. In the light of the said contention, I have carefully perused the order of the respondent impugned in this writ petition. After the reading the order of the respondent, it is clear that though the management had filed representation highlighting their case even on 27. 5. 1991 and the subsequent statement on 28. 6. 1991 explaining as to how Act itself was not applicable to their establishment, the respondent did not consider any of the aspects raised therein, and passed a non-speaking order with a direction to contribute a sum of Rs. 1, 33, 420.