INDIAN COFFEE WORKERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR REGIONAL OFFICER EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION PONDICHERRYZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

(2.) Indian Coffee Workers Cooperative Society Ltd., P-67 represented by its General Manager has filed the above civil miscellaneous appeals challenging the correctness of the impugned orders dated 28.3.2017 passed in E.S.I.O.P.Nos.8 & 9 of 2011 by the Employees State Insurance Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Pondicherry, declining the request made by the appellant to declare that the members of the appellant society are not employees as defined under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act to pay any contribution and also to declare the purported order dated 23.6.2006 in No.55-13100-102/1352 and the order dated 6.7.2006 in No.55- 13100-102/142 respectively, passed under Section 45-A of the Act by the Regional Officer, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Pondicherry are illegal, void ab initio and non est in the eye of law.

(3.) Mr.R.Sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailing the impugned orders, submitted that when the appellant is Indian Coffee Workers Cooperative Society Ltd., registered under the Pondicherry Cooperative Societies Act only for the benefit of the members so as to provide employment to them and the employees of the appellant are not coming under the jurisdiction of the Employees State Insurance Act , the first respondent erroneously issued the notice dated 19.3.2004 in No.55-13100-102/146 and another notice dated 25.3.2004 in No.55-13100-102/242 directing the appellant to explain the default of contribution of Rs.1,58,945/- for the period from 1.10.2002 to 30.9.2003. These notices were put to challenge before the ESI Court (II Additional District Judge), Pondicherry in I.A.No.5 of 2004 for waiver of payment. But the ESI Court miserably failed to take into account that the first respondent had issued the order dated 23.6.2006 in No.55-13100-102/1352 and the order dated 6.7.2006 in No.55-13100-102/142 directing the appellant to pay Rs.9,62,737/- & Rs.2,83,710/- for the period from 1.10.2003 to 30.9.2005 & 1.10.2005 to 30.4.2005 respectively immediately, failing which the same would be recovered under Sections 45-C to 45-I of the Employees State Insurance Act through the second respondent. Moreover, when the appellant has been getting exemption from the Government of Pondicherry from the year 1994 till 2002, the appellant also passed a resolution seeking further exemption from the Government of Pondicherry for the check period and the respondents, taking advantage of the delay caused by the Government of Pondicherry in granting exemption to the appellant, have mounted pressure to comply and make the contribution without waiting for the result of the request made by the appellant for grant of exemption from the Government of Pondicherry. When the appellant was enjoying the exemption from the year 1994 till 2002 and that the Government of Pondicherry has been in the process of considering the matter favourably for the subsequent period, notice has been wrongly sent directing the appellant to make the payment. Adding further, he has stated that when the exemption was granted by the Government of Pondicherry from the year 1994 to 30.9.2002, there is no need for compelling the appellant to make the contribution. In such circumstances, the appellant came to the ESI Court. The ESI Court, having been apprised of the fact that the Government has been granting exemption from the year 1994 to 2002, has wrongly rejected the case declining to accept the prayer for grant of exemption. Concluding his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the very basis for grant of exemption by the Government of Pondicherry was only on the premise that the employees of the appellant are not coming under the jurisdiction of the Employees State Insurance Act and being convinced thereon, the exemption was granted. However, from the year 2002 till now, the file is pending before the Government of Pondicherry, but no final call is taken. Therefore, the ESI Court ought not to have passed the impugned orders. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, he pleaded.