REGIONAL DIRECTOR Vs. T. MURUGADOSS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and decree dated 10.08.2015 passed in E.I.O.P.No.55 of 2008 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.s

(2.) The Regional Director, ESI Corporation is the appellant. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised the following substantial question of law which reads as under:

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ESI Corporation reiterated that the facts and circumstances established by the ESI Authorities before the ESI Court was misconstrued and the ESI Court proceeded with the case based on certain assumption as if there was two different hotel establishments. In view of the fact that the continuous functioning of the hotel was erroneously understood, the order passed by the competent authorities under Section 45 G of the ESI Act was set aside. Thus, the ESI Court order is liable to be scrapped. To substantiate the said contention, the preliminary ground has been raised that the order passed by the competent authority under Section 45A of the ESI Act in proceedings dated 24.05.2004 served on the respondent was not challenged by the respondent under Section 47 of the ESI Act. In the absence of challenging the original order passed under Section 45 A of the ESI Act, the ESI Court ought not to have entertained an appeal under Section 75 in respect of the order passed under Section 45G which is a consequential order and a recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the order under Section 45A of the Act. Thus, the very judgment which was proceeded based on certain irrelevant consideration of facts is to be set aside.