Back
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Employees’ State Insurance Corporation – Appellant
Versus
S. and S. Combines – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 against the order dated 12.01.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-E.S.I. Court, Jamshedpur in E.S.I. Case No. 3 of 2002 by which the learned E.S.I. court has allowed the application filed by the applicant who is the sole respondent in this appeal filed under Section 75 (2) (a) of the E.S.I. Act, 1948, after holding that as the applicant has no knowledge about the Act before August, 1997 and the code number was allotted to him in August, 1997 vide Ext.4. Hence, the applicant could not deposit the contribution for the period in question and the act of the applicant is not deliberate act. Hence, the applicant is not liable to pay the contribution of E.SI of that period.
3. The case of the applicant in brief is that the applicant is the partnership firm and he is the contractor of TISCO Limited, Jamshedpur for executing the work of cleaning, painting and other miscellaneous work inside TISCO works. M/s. TISCO Limited is exempted from the application of provision of E.S.I. Act and the said Act was made applicable to the c
The liability to pay E.S.I. contribution and interest is determined by the effective date of the notification and the adjudication of the actual amount payable.
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....
The employer's payment after the clarificatory order was a strict compliance with statutory regulations, making the demand for interest not legally sustainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the joint and several liability of the transferee and the transferrer under Section 93A of the Employees State Insurance Act.
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).
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 established that employment status must be supported by concrete evidence, and inferences drawn without such evidence are insufficient to impose liability under the Employees’ State Insuran....
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
