Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
JITENDRA JAIN
Deputy Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Aashu Engineering Works – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal challenges quashing of esi act s.85-b damages order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. section 85-b empowers damages levy up to arrears post-hearing. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. lower court found damages order mechanical without default analysis. (Para 8) |
| 4. authority considered submissions; unpleaded factors do not invalidate order. (Para 9 , 10 , 17) |
| 5. form c-18 notified employer of potential damages liability. (Para 11) |
| 6. manipulated records evidence employer's malafide intention. (Para 12) |
| 7. damages enforce deterrence; discretion exercised liberally here. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 8. cited precedent distinguished; no basis to reduce damages. (Para 18) |
| 9. damages order restored; appeal allowed. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
JITENDRA JAIN, J.
1. This appeal was admitted on 23 August 2011 on following substantial question of law :-
“Whether, on admitted facts, the learned Judge of the Employees State Insurance Court (ESI Court) could have set aside the order passed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act) ?”
2. On 10 January 2006, the appellant passed an order under Section 85-B of the ESI Act, levying damages of Rs.27,849/-. The respondent was given an op
Section 85-B damages order valid if considers employer's submissions; cannot be quashed for not addressing unraised factors like default number/extent/frequency; record manipulation shows mala fide, ....
The court ruled that damages for delayed ESI contributions must be calculated from the correct demand date, emphasizing the need for authorities to consider mitigating circumstances in penalty assess....
Mens rea is not required for imposing penalties under the Employees State Insurance Act for breach of civil obligations.
No express limitation under Section 85-B ESI Act for damages on delayed contributions, but orders must be within reasonable five-year period per Act's scheme; fourteen-year delay held unreasonable, q....
Damages under S.85B of the Employees' State Insurance Act are penalties, not compensation for actual loss, and do not require proof of loss for imposition.
Damages under the E.S.I. Act are discretionary, not mandatory, and must consider genuine hardships, reaffirming that penalties should not automatically apply.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a subsequent transferee may not be liable for belated payment of contribution under the ESI Act if there is no mens rea on their part, and the....
Belated payment of contribution - Payment of contribution under the ESI Act is a statutory liability and the ESI Corporation has no power to grant waiver
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
