The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to follow the statutory provisions strictly, especially regarding the waiver of deposit, and the impermissibility of routine grant of waiver when the statute prescribes a specific deposit amount.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, praying to set aside the order of the Principal Labour Court dated 11.09.2012 in I.A.No.179 of 2012.

The order dated 11.09.2012 passed in I.A.No.179 of 2012 in unnumbered E.I.O.P is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The sole contention raised by the appellant is that in respect of the same period two different orders were passed under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act, for which the Competent Authority has no jurisdiction. In other words, the period of assessment is one and the same and two different orders were passed under Section 45-A of the Act. Thus, the second order is unsustainable and the E.S.I. Court has merely directed the appellant to deposit 25% under the Provisions of the Act, on the ground that a consistency is to be maintained. Consistency is to be maintained, if the period of assessment is different. However in the present case, the period of assessment is one and the same and therefore, the findings of the E.S.I. Court is that the consistency is to be maintained as no relevance with reference to the Provisions of the Act and there is no other reason to reject the Interlocutory Application filed by the appellant.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant solicited the attention of this Court with reference to Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act, which empowers authorities competent for assessment and to determine the contribution to be paid in the Act. Once an order of assessment is passed then the aggrieved person is at liberty to prefer an appeal.

4. In the present case, the appellant preferred an appeal and for the purpose of pre-deposit the Interlocutory Application is filed seeking waiver. In the said Interlocutory Application, the Labour Court made an observation that waiver cannot be granted in full and directed the appellant to deposit 25% of the Contribution. Undoubtedly, the Labour Court itself has extended some concession in the appeal.

5. Not satisfied with the waiver, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that when there is a statutory prohibition for not issuing Section 45-A Order in respect of the same period, the appellant must be provided with a complete waiver.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant cited the judgment of this Court in the case of Quality Engineering Works and Regional Office (Tamil Nadu), Employees' State Insurance Corporation in W.P.No.18688 of 1993 dated 11.04.2001 and paragraph No.8 of the Judgment is extracted hereunder:

“8. From the counter, it is very clear that the petitioner had disclosed all the necessary materials before the Assistant Regional Director of the E.S.I. Corporation. It is admitted that the complete materials and facts were before him. But, it is contended that for reasons best known, the concerned authority had not properly verified those statements, but went ahead on the basis of a casual verification of the general ledger and therefore, the show-cause notice was issued with reference to the omitted portion. On the face of this admission that the petitioner had disclosed all the materials including the one given to the Income Tax Department by the contractors in reference to the wages, etc., if there is omission on the part of the Assistant Regional Director, the petitioner cannot be blamed for that. There is no provision under the E.S.I. Act to reopen an order of assessment made under such circumstances. A Division Bench of this Court, in Eastern Stores v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 1973 (2) L.L.N 378, dealing with the Employees' Provident Funds and fundamental that if a statutory authority wants to re-examine a concluded affair or subject-matter, it assumed the role of a reviewer in law and unless and until the statute under which he functions, athorises him expressly or by necessary implication to review such matters under certain stated circumstances or situations, he cannot assume such power in him suo motu and s