JOINT DIRECTOR SUB REGIONAL OFFICE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Vs. SAROJ WIRES AND STEEL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Employees Insurance Court on 13.9.2007 holding that the application filed by the respondent no. 1 stood disposed of as the proceedings were infructuous.

(3.) The order was passed by the petitioner against the respondent no.l under section 85(B) of the E.S.I. Act 1948 on 26.2.2002 imposing damages of Rs.22685/ for the delayed payment of contribution for the period from April, 1991 to March, 1992 and April, 1993 to September 1993. The respondent no.l challenged the order dated 26.2.2002 before the Employees Insurance Court, Nagpur in Insurance Case No.3/2004. The petitioner filed written statement and denied the claim of the respondent no.l. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Employees Insurance Court, two communications dated 30.10.2006 were issued by the petitioner to the respondent no.l. It was stated in the first communication dated 30.10.2006 that the respondent no. 1 has already paid the dues sought by the orders dated 2.7.1993, 22.1.1995, and 3.5.1993. By the second communication dated 30.10.2006, the respondent no.l was asked to approach the petitioner authority if it wanted to avail an opportunity of amnesty in regard to Criminal Case No.1206/1991, 1652/1992, E.I. Case No.3/2004 pertaining to the levy of the damages. It further appears that the respondent no.l merely produced these two communications before the Employees Insurance Court to state that the matter has become infructuous as the dues were already paid to the petitioner. The Employees Insurance Court by the impugned order dated 14.9.2007 disposed of the application filed by the respondent no.l on the ground that the proceedings had become infructuous in view of the communications dated 30.10.2006 showing that the dues had been paid by the respondent no.l to the petitioner. The court further permitted the respondent no.l to withdraw the amount deposited by the respondent no. 1 in the court.