EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION HYDERABAD Vs. RAMALINGESWARA PULVARISING MILLS KODUR CUDDAPAH DISTIRCT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these cases the facts are same and the question of law is identical. Hence they are disposed of through a common order.

(2.) The Employees State Insurance Corporation is the petitioner. The respondents are industrial establishments (for short, the respondents). They are under obligation to make contributions for the Employees State Insurance Fund (Fund) constituted under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to Act). For the default committed by them in making the contributions to the fund, the petitioner had initiated prosecution under Section 85 of the Act and Rules and Regulations made thereunder, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class to Try Offences under ESI and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-1, Hyderabad. The Trial Court, through its various orders in the respective cases found the respondents guilty of the offence, and imposed the sentence of fine. The petitioner filed these applications seeking leave to challenge the orders of the Trial Court, so far they relate to the quantum of punishment.

(3.) Smt. Pushpender Kaur, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though, the Trial Court found that the respondents failed to make contributions for themselves and on behalf of their employees, it had not inflicted the punishment, provided for under Section 85(A) of the Act. According to her, once it is established that the respondents have failed to make contributions, the minimum punishment prescribed therefor ought to have been inflicted, as a matter of course.