HALLMARK INDUSTRIES Vs. TAHSILDAR TAMBARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Balan Haridas, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. R. Murali, learned Government Advocate for the Respondents 1 and 2, Mrs.S. Jothivani, learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent and Mr. V. Subburayan, learned Counsel for the 4th and 5th Respondents.

(2.) The Petitioner is an employer. They have filed the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge the order dated29.9.2009 passed by the 1st Respondent Tahsildar, Tambaram, Kancheepuram District. By the impugned order, the Tahsildar, Tambaram gave a distrait order against the Petitioner Company for recovering a sum of Rs. 2,15,280/together with interest on account of their liability arising out of the order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. However, at the time when the Writ Petition was filed, the Petitioner did not challenge the order passed by the 2nd Respondent Deputy Commissioner of Labor-cum-Workmen Compensation made in W.C. No. 80 of 2001 dated3.8.2004.

(3.) The Writ Petition was admitted on 23.10.2009. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted an interim stay. Prima facie this Court observed that Section 53 of the ESI Act bars any proceedings by any insured person instituted under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 21.1.2011, this Court directed the original records to be produced relating to the workmen compensation case from the office of the 2nd Respondent. It was brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the Rule Nisi ordered, records were received by this Court.