EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION THROUGH THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR Vs. PALM TREE SERVICE STATION FRASER ROAD PATNA THROUGH ITS PARTNER MRS SUNITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.4.2009 in ESI. Case No. 8 of 2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Employees' State Insurance Court, Patna whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 75(1)(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was allowed holding that the order dated 27.5.2005/9.11.2005 under section 45A of the Act was perverse and not sustainable in law. The appellant-State Insurance Corporation being aggrieved has preferred this appeal with a prayer to set aside the order under the appeal. Mr. Rabindra Kumar Choubey appears on behalf of the appellant, however no one appears on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) The facts in short is that the respondent on being aggrieved by the order under Section 45A of the Act, as referred to the above, as sailed the same before the Labour Court basically alleging that the contributions as demanded is not payable and secondly that the order under Section 45A of the Act was passed without giving reasonable opportunity to defend his case. Before the Labour Court oral evidences were adduced as also documents were brought on record as evidence which were marked as exhibits. The order under Section 45A of the Act dated 27.5.2005 is marked as Exhibit-D.

(3.) Mr. Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the Court below to the, Affect that the order under Section 45A (Exhibit-D) being not a speaking order, and as such, the same having set aside is not justified in law. It is submitted that on perusal of the Exhibit-D it would appear that the aforesaid order was passed after giving opportunity of hearing and pursuant to the notice the respondent appeared before the authority concerned and produced the relevant documents. It is further submitted that the aforesaid order was passed after considering the materials brought on record, and as such, it cannot be validly said that the aforesaid order has been passed without application of mind or without considering the documents brought on record. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order under appeal deserves to be set aside.