The ESI Court has jurisdiction to remand cases for fresh adjudication, ensuring fair hearing rights under the Employees’ State Insurance Act.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.A.V.Nair for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.Y.K.Gadhia for the respondent.

2. This is an Appeal under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 challenging the judgment and award dated 28.06.2022 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘ESI Court’) in E.S.I. Application No.22 of 2019, whereby the ESI Court set aside the order passed below under Section 45A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) on 23.11.2018.

3. The brief facts leading to the present First Appeal are as under:-

3.1 The respondent is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling and trading of ‘Hitachi’ brand of Air-conditioners, refrigerators, etc. and registered with the Employees State Insurance Corporation and is having Code No.3700017375000069.

3.2 Vide order dated 23.11.2018, the liability to pay contribution of the concerned employees of the respondent was determined under Section 45A of the said Act for the period between November, 2013 to March, 2014. Respondent preferred an appeal under Section 45A A of the said Act read with Regulation 31(D) of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950. The said appeal was rejected vide communication dated 18.03.2019 on the ground of limitation.

3.3 Thereafter, the proceedings were initiated against the respondent for the recovery of amount of contribution. The respondent herein filed an application under Section 75 of the Act, being ESI Application No.22 of 2019 before the Employees State Insurance Court, Rajkot challenging the order of contribution which was passed under Section 45A , Section 45B and Section 45C of the Act. The same came to be partly allowed and the order passed under Section 45A and the order passed under Section 45A A of the said Act, were set aside and the present appellant was directed to hear the appeal a fresh after giving ample opportunity to respondent. Against this order, the appellant is before this Court.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant has proposed the following substantial questions of law for consideration.

(i) Whether the Hon’ble Employees State Insurance Court has jurisdiction under Section 75 of the ESI Act to interfere with the orders of determining the due under Section 45A , which is Appealable under Section 45A A, post 2010 amendment?

(ii) Whether the Hon’ble Employees State Insurance Court has jurisdiction under Section 75 of the ESI Act, to set aside the recovery proceedings against the Respondent initiated pursuant to the order of determination of the contribution for the default period, under Section 45A , against which appeal preferred by the Respondent under Section 45A A read with Regulation 31D of the ESI (General)

Regulations, 1950, has become time barred?

(iii) Whether the Hon’ble Employees State Insurance Court has exceeded its jurisdiction vested under the Section 75 of the ESI Act, in the facts of the present case?

(iv) Whether the impugned Judgment and award passed by the Hon’ble Employees’ State Insurance Court is erroneous and perverse, as being contrary to the established facts on record?

5. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned ESI Court has committed an error of law in remanding the matter to the appellate authority without mindful exercising of jurisdiction under Section 75 of the Act. It is further submitted that the order passed below Section 45A of the said Act determining the contribution payable by respondent, is just and proper, and an appeal preferred under Section 45AA against the order is time barred.

5.1 It is further submitted that the order d