Back
2004 Supreme(All) 933
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ARUN TANDON
DELHI PRAKASHAN VITRAN PVT. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE COURT, GHAZIABAD - Respondents
CM. W. P. 9323 Of 1986
Decided On : 05/12/2004
P.K.Asthana, S.S.VERMA, SATISH CHATURVEDI
The court's decision highlighted the importance of providing reasoning in orders and the impact of non-compliance with statutory provisions on the validity of the order.
Headnote:
Employees State Insurance Act - Order Setting Aside - Lack of Reasoning
Fact of the Case:
The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Court, Ghaziabad demanded an amount from the petitioner, employers for their contribution under the Employees State Insurance Act. The employers filed a case in the court of Employees State Insurance Court Ghaziabad, and their application for waiver of the deposit of 15% of the disputed amount was rejected. The present writ petition was filed against this rejection.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 82 of the Act but chose not to dismiss the writ petition at this stage due to the long duration since the petition was admitted and the interim order was granted. The court found that the order dated June 20, 1986 lacked reasoning and was in non-compliance with the provisions of proviso to Section 75 (2-B) of the act, thus setting it aside and directing the application to be decided in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the employer's application for waiver and the compliance with the proviso to Section 75 (2-B) of the Employees State Insurance Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided not to dismiss the writ petition despite the existence of an alternative remedy due to the long duration since the petition was admitted and the interim order was granted. The court also found that the order lacked reasoning and was in non-compliance with the provisions of proviso to Section 75 (2-B) of the act, leading to its setting aside.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the order dated June 20, 1986 was set aside, with directions for the application to be decided in accordance with the law.
( 1 ) HEARD Sri Satish Chaturvedi, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner, Sri. P. K. Asthana, advocate, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and learned Standing Counsel, on behalf of respondent No. 3.
( 2 ) THE Regional Director, Employees state Insurance Court, Ghaziabad passed an order dated November 11, 1985 demanding an amount from the petitioner, employers to the tune of Rs. 35,035. 00 plus interest of Rs. 3,734. 30 towards their contribution under employees State Insurance Act. Against the said order, the employers filed the case in the court of Employees State Insurance Court ghaziabad, being Case No. 181 of 1983, under section 75 of the Employees State Insurance act, 1948. In the said suit the employers had also filed an application for waiver of the deposit of 15% of the disputed amount as required under Section 75 (1-B ). The said waiver application has been rejected by employees State Insurance Court, Ghaziabad by means of a non-speaking order dated June 20, 1986. Against this order the present writ petition has been filed.
( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioner it is contended that under proviso to Section 75 (2-B) it is mandatory that the Court has to pass the order in writing supported by reasons. The order dated June 20, 1986 is one line order which contains no reason and as such liable to be set aside.
( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondents it is contended that petitioner has got an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal under section 82 of the Act. The petitioner has not availed the same. The petition is liable to be dismissed.
( 5 ) ALTHOUGH the petitioner has a remedy under Section 82 of the Act against the order dated June 20, 1986, this Court is not inclined to dismiss the writ petition at this stage on the ground of alternative remedy. Inasmuch as the writ petition was entertained by this Court and was admitted on March 8, 1991 an interim order was also granted in favour of the petitioner. After a lapse of more than 18 years, dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy is not warranted under law.
( 6 ) SO far as the order dated June 20, 1986 is concerned, it is apparent from the record that it contains no reason. There has been manifest non-compliance of the requirements of the provisions of proviso to Section 75 (2-B) of the act. The order as such cannot be sustained. The order is hereby set aside. The application filed by the petitioner be decided in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties concerned at the earliest, preferably within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before it.
( 7 ) THE writ petition is allowed.
.
