Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Arindam Sinha, J.
National Aluminium Company Ltd., Koraput – Appellant
Versus
Employees State Insurance Corporation & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 20399 of 2016
Decided On : 13-01-2023
Insurance Court - Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - The court discussed the discretionary power under sub-section (2-B) of section 75 in the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, and the requirement of providing reasons for waiver or reduction. The court relied on the view taken by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in M/s. Satyam Glass Works Industries v. Employees' State Insurance to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Insurance Court dated 14th September, 2016, which directed the petitioner to make a deposit without providing any reason for not exercising discretion under sub-section (2-B) under section 75 in the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted an adjournment for the petitioner to consider the judgment and rely on other authorities. The final decision was to list the case on 30th January, 2023, along with other related cases.
Issues: The issues revolved around the discretionary power under sub-section (2-B) of section 75 in the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, and the requirement of providing reasons for waiver or reduction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's analysis focused on the statutory requirement of providing reasons for waiver or reduction, as discussed in the view taken by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in M/s. Satyam Glass Works Industries v. Employees' State Insurance.
Final Decision: The final decision was to grant an adjournment and list the case on 30th January, 2023, along with other related cases.
JUDGMENT
Arindam Sinha, J. - Ms. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is order dated 14th September, 2016 made by the Insurance Court in not exercising discretion under sub-section (2-B) under section 75 in Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Her client had prayed for waiver of pre-deposit. Without reason, impugned order was passed directing her client to make the deposit on default direction.
2. Mr. Ray, learned advocate appears on behalf of the corporation and relies on view taken by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in M/s. Satyam Glass Works Industries v. Employees' State Insurance reported in 2007 LLR 750. A passage from paragraph-5 in the report is extracted and reproduced below.
'xx xx xx Therefore, reasons are compulsory statutory requirement when waiver or reduction is allowed but not when it is rejected. Therefore, order of rejection is a discretionary power and cannot be said to be substantial question of law. If it is allowed, the weaker section of the people will be affected. Therefore, Court is compelled to provide with reasons of waiver or reduction being statutory requirement otherwise such section of the people seem to be affected. There is no provision that reasons are also to be given when such prayer is rejected. xx xx xx'
3. Ms. Rath prays for adjournment to consider the judgment and also to rely on other authorities.
4. List on 30th January, 2023 along with W.P.(C) nos. 15994 of 2016 and 20398 of 2016.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of providing reasons for waiver or reduction under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.
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 w....
Pre-deposits can be credited against future liabilities in ESI disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for approaching the ESI Court for adjudication of disputes under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.
The court held that compliance with statutory pre-deposit requirements is necessary for pursuing appeals and emphasized restoring the appeal to the appellate authority upon timely deposit.
The main legal point established is that an appeal under Section 82 of the Act of 1948 would not lie against an order that does not finally decide the rights and liabilities of the parties.
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, ....
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
