ANANTHI HOSPITAL, REP BY ITS PARTNER, S MUTHUKARUPPAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent herein passed an order dated 30.12.2013 under Section 45(A) of the E.S.I.Act ordering that the contribution payable by the appellant herein for the period in question is Rs.2,33,268/-. The appellant was issued with show cause notice dated 20.09.2013, proposing to determine the contribution payable by the appellant from May 2012 to July 2013. This show cause notice was apparently based on the visit note of the Social Security Officer of the Corporation. The case of the appellant was that they are not liable to be covered by the said Act. According to them, number of employees was below the ceiling of 20. On the date of visit, the nursing students attached to the seond and third respondents were in the premises of the appellant Hospital and they were also wrongly added to the list of employees. Therefore, the appellant while disputing their liability called upon the first respondent to furnish them the copies of the report of the Social Security Officer. The same was not furnished. Instead, enquiry dates were announced. The appellant made it clear that it was not possible to submit their explanation or attend the enquiry unless the records sought for by them made available to them. But, the order under Section 45-A came to be passed. Therefore, the appellant filed E.S.I.O.P.No.6 of 2015. But, the said petition was partly allowed by the E.S.I.Court, by order dated 09.09.2016. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.

(2.) The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law which have arisen for consideration:

(3.) The appellant examined herself as P.W.1. As many as 18 documents were marked. The E.S.I. Court held that only after grant of sufficient opportunity, order under Section 45 A of the Act came to be passed. The E.S.I. Court held that the appellant was covered by the Act. Only as regards the quantum of contribution payable relief was given. Thus, the petition filed by the appellant was allowed only in part.