JUDGMENT

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Act'), the appellant has sought setting aside of the judgment dated 03.11.2020 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in ESIC No. 16/2016. In addition, the appellant has assailed orders dated 17.01.2012 & 05.07.2012 passed by the Deputy Director, SRO, (North) and the Appellate Authority, SRO, Rohini, Delhi respectively.

2. A perusal of the paper book would show that the present proceedings originate from a Show Cause Notice dated 25.07.2011 issued by ESIC under Sections 85(a) and 85(e) of the Act, whereby the appellant was asked to deposit employees' contribution of Rs.4,79,050/- for the period from 01.06.2006 to June, 2011. The aforesaid notice culminated into passing of a speaking order dated 17.01.2012 under Section 45-A of the Act, which was challenged by the appellant by way of an appeal under Section 45-AA of the Act. The same came to be dismissed vide order dated 05.07.2012, which in turn was challenged before the learned SCJ by way of an appeal filed under Section 75 read with Sections 76 & 77 of the Act. The said appeal came to be dismissed by way of the order impugned herein.

3. It is worthwhile to note that the entire case revolves around the allegation that despite having employed atleast 20 employees and thus being covered under the Act, the appellant has not paid the requisite contribution.

4. There is no gainsaying that labour statutes, such as the Act, constitute ‘beneficial legislation’, enacted for the welfare of employees/workmen. Besides ESIC, such workmen/employees, are also to be necessarily impleaded in petitions filed under Section 75 of the Act through self or in representative capacity. In this regard, this Court deems it expedient to advert to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited v. Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and Others reported as (2009) 9 SCC 485:-

"8. In our opinion, wherever any petition is filed by an employer under Section 75 of the Act, the employer has not only to implead the ESIC but has also to implead at least some of the workers concerned (in a representative capacity if there are a large number of workers) or the trade union representing the said workers. If that is not done, and a decision is given in favour of the employer, the same will be in violation of the rules of natural justice. After all, the real parties concerned in labour matters are the employer and the workers. ESI Corporation will not be in any way affected if the demand notice sent by it under Section 45-A/45-B is quashed.

9. It must be remembered that the Act has been enacted for the benefit of the workers to give them medical benefits, which have been mentioned in Section 46 of the Act. Hence, the principal beneficiary of the Act is the workmen and not ESI Corporation. ESI Corporation is only the agency to implement and carry out the object of the Act and it has nothing to lose if the decision of the Employees' Insurance Court is given in favour of the employer. It is only the workmen who have to lose if a decision is given in favour of the employer. Hence, the workmen (or at least some of them in a representative capacity, or their trade union) have to be necessarily made a party/parties because the Act is a labour legislation made for the benefit of the workmen.

10. In the present case the workmen concerned were not made parties before the Employees’ Insurance Court, nor was notice issued to them by the said court. Also, the order of the Employees' Insurance Court dated 4-2-1993, relevant portion of which we have quoted, is not a very happy one as no proper determination has been made therein as to whether the workmen concerned are the employees of the appellant and whether they are entitled to the benefit of the