SUPER SPINNING MILLS LIMITED (DEFUNCT) Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 04.08.2020 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in E.S.I.O.P.C.F.R.NO.125 of 2019 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly contended that the statutory order passed under Section 45A of the Act was not communicated nor served to the appellant. Therefore, there was a delay in filing the appeal under Section 75 of the Act. In order to establish the said contention, the learned Senior Counsel solicited the attention of this Court with reference to the prohibitory order passed by the second respondent in proceeding dated 01.10.2018 wherein the address of the appellant is stated as M/s.Super SPG Mills Limited, 18E, 18F, Jeeva Street, Urumandampalayam, GN Mills Post, Coimbatore-641 029. The said address is the address of the factory and the factory was closed on 09.07.2007 itself. Thus, the order communicated to the above factory address was not reached and the appellant had no occasion to get the order. However, the office address was also furnished to the ESI Authorities and even in the said prohibitory order, the office address as M/s.Super SPG Mills Limited, 737 D Puliakulam Road, Elgi Towers, Green Fields, Coimbatore-641 045 is mentioned. In the said address, the office of the appellant was functioning and the order was communicated subsequently to the address. Therefore, the ESI Authorities cannot say that the appellant has changed his address and therefore, the order was not communicated.

(3.) Relying on the said order passed by the Recovery Officer, the learned Senior Counsel made a submission that after receiving prohibitory order, the appellant/Company made a request to furnish the copies of the orders/documents passed under Section 45A of the Act. Thereafter, in proceedings dated 28.11.2008, all the photocopies of the orders/documents were communicated to the appellant in their office address. On receipt of documents/orders passed under Section 45A of the Act, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the Act before the ESI Court along with an interlocutory application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It is relevant to consider that Rule 17(1) of the Tamil Nadu Employee's Insurance Courts Rules was struck down by the Courts. Therefore, the ESI Court had no power to condone the delay and the ESI Court passed an order in the interlocutory application by holding that the delay occurred in filing of the petition till April 2019 is unsubstantiated and an abnormal delay of more than a year cannot be condoned in the circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.