STATE INSURANCE COPRN Vs. EMPLOYEESVENKATACHALAM CONDIMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .M.A.No.881 of 1986 and C.M.A. No.130 of 1987 arise out of the order passed by the learned E.S.I. Judge. City Civil Court, Madras dated 17.10.1984 in E.S.I.O.P.Nos.18 of 1983 and 17 of 1983 respectively.

(2.) THE averments in the petitions viz., E.S.I. O.P.Nos. 18 and 17 of 1983 are similar and are as follows: The petitioner is an employer within the purview of the Employees State Insurance Act. The petitioner has been remitting contributions to the respondent -Corporation in respect of their employees employed by them. In April, 1980, the respondent proposed to levy damages of Rs.9,570 alleging that there had been delay in respect of remittance of contributions during the period from 7/1979 to 11/1979 which is the subject matter of E.S.I. O.P.No.17 of 1983. The respondent proposed to levy damages of Rs.34,637 alleging that there had been delay in respect of remittance of contribution during the period from 11/1976 to 5/1979 which is the subject matter of the E.S.I. O.P.No.18 of 1983. Even though the petitioner has submitted his explanation, without any enquiry and giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the respondent passed the order on 21.6.1980 assessing the damages at Rs.9,570 under Sec.85(B) of the Employees State Insurance Act. So also the respondent without any enquiry and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner being heard in person passed an order on 2.2.1980 assessing the damages at Rs.34,637 under Sec.85(B) of the Employees - State Insurance Act. The petitioner never failed to pay the contributions nor there was any arrears. In case of delayed payment, the Authorities could have applied the provisions of Sec.68 of the abovesaid Act alone. Wages to the workers were delayed due to various reasons and they were condoned by the Inspector of Factories. The imposition of damages is arbitrary and without any basis. It is therefore invalid and unsustainable. The claim of damages is high. Hence the petitions to set aside the orders dated 21.6.1980 and 15.10.1981.

(3.) ON the above pleadings, a common enquiry was held by the learned E.S.I. Judge and the impugned order has been passed by the learned Judge allowing the petitions filed by the petitioner setting aside the orders of the respondent -corporation dated 15.10.1981 and 21.6.1980 and remitting the matter to the Regional Director for fresh disposal in the list of the observations made in the impugned order.