Back
NIKHIL S. KARIEL
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION – Appellant
Versus
RAJ RATAN FOUNDRY – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Krutarth K. Pandya on behalf of the appellants and learned Advocate Mr. Pankaj R. Desai on behalf of the respondents-employers in both the appeals.
2. ADMIT. Learned Advocate Mr. Desai waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondents.
3. With consent of learned Advocates for the parties, the present first appeals are taken up for final disposal.
4. The First Appeal No. 4982 of 2022 calls into question judgment and order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned Employees' State Insurance Court, Rajkot in ESI Application No. 15 of 2008, and whereas the First Appeal No. 296 of 2023 calls into question judgment and order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned Employees' State Insurance Court, Rajkot in ESI Application No. 02 of 2009.
5. Since the facts as well as the issues raised in both the appeals are identical, both the appeals are being taken up for final disposal together.
6. Learned Advocate Mr. Krutarth K. Pandya on behalf of the appellant-Corporation would submit that the impugned decisions passed in both the ESI Applications referred to hereinabove suffer from two major infirmities inasmuch as learned Advo
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary nature of imposing damages under Regulation 31C and the mandatory nature of interest payment under Section 39(5)(a).
The employer's obligation to pay contribution arises from the date of confirmation of coverage, and the employer cannot claim waiver of damages and interest due to the litigation period. The court em....
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....
Damages under the E.S.I. Act are discretionary, not mandatory, and must consider genuine hardships, reaffirming that penalties should not automatically apply.
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....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the levy of interest under Section 39(5)(a) of the ESI Act is mandatory, and the liability to pay the interest is a statutory liability, not s....
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
