MAKESH KUMAR MILLS Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the establishments covered by the provisions of the ESI Act. Challenging the orders issued under Section 45-A of the ESI Act dated 26.4.2005, 12.07.2005, 28.12.2004 and 8.8.2006 respectively, the Writ Petitions came to be filed.

(2.) THE Writ Petitions were admitted. Pending the Writ Petitions, this Court granted conditional stay. It is now claimed that the condition has been complied with.

(3.) HOWEVER, in the impugned orders, the stand of the Department was that some other units, for which the petitioner paid payment are covered by the ESI Act and in those cases, there is no necessity to pay contribution. But, in respect of the uncovered units, where job work is done, they are liable to pay the amounts. As to whether the particular work was done as a job work or done by out-sourcing is essentially a question of fact. If an order is passed under Section 45-A of the ESI Act, in the absence of such order being challenged, by taking recourse to Section 75 of the ESI Act, it can be final so far as the Department is concerned and recovery proceedings can also be initiated.