This appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees’

State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Act’) has been filed by the Employees State Insurance

Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’)

challenging the order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the

Employees’ State Insurance Court, Mysuru (hereinafter

referred to as ‘ESI Court’) in E.S.I.Application No.04/2016

whereby the application filed by the respondent has been

allowed. The matter was remitted back to the Corporation

for fresh consideration.

2.

The case of the Corporation/appellant is that

the Government by notification dated 16.03.2011 has

extended the ESI Act to Education Institution. In view of

the above, the Education Institution i.e. respondent herein

has covered under ESI Act. They have not submitted

returns every year. Since they have failed to comply the

provisions of ESI Act, the Corporation by exercising the

power under Section 45A of the Act has initiated the

- 3 -

proceedings and issued notice to the respondent on

07.11.2014. They have given more than 5 opportunities to

respondent to produce the relevant records as per the

provisions of ESI Act. Since they have failed to produce

the same, on the basis of material available with the

Corporation, the Corporation has passed an order under

Section 45A of the Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the

respondent herein has filed an application before the ESI

Court under Section 75 of the Act in E.S.I. Application

No.04/2016. The ESI Court has allowed the application

and remanded the matter back to the Corporation. Being

aggrieved by the same, the Corporation is before this

Court in this appeal.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation

has contended that the Government by notification dated

16.03.2011 has extended the ESI Act to Education

Institution. From that day, the Education Institution i.e.

respondent herein has covered under that Act. Since they

have not submitted any report, the Corporation has

- 4 -

initiated the proceedings under Section 45A of the Act and

issued notice to respondent on 07.11.2014 and they have

given more than 5 opportunities to the respondent to

produce the relevant records. Since they have failed to

produce the same, the Corporation has passed the order

under Section 45A of the Act. She further contended that

the respondent has challenged the order passed under

Section 45A of the Act before the ESI Court under Section

75 of the Act. ESI Court as an original jurisdiction has all

powers to examine the documents produced by the parties

and pass the order. The ESI Court instead of exercising

the power under Section 75 of the Act, has erred in

remanding the matter to the Corporation for fresh

consideration. In support of her contention, she has relied

upon the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 1986 KAR

3595 in the case of M/S.ESCORTS LTD. VS. REGIONAL

DIRECTOR, ESIC.

4.

Respondent served and unrepresented.

- 5 -

5.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

6.

The

Government

by

notification

dated

16.03.2011 has extended the ESI Act to Education

Institution. Since the respondent has not paid contribution

to the Corporation, the Corporation has initiated the

proceedings under Section 45A of the Act and issued

notice to the respondent calling upon the respondent to

why the Corporation should not be determined the

contribution

amount.

In

spite

of

giving

sufficient

opportunities, the respondent has not responded. Hence,

the Corporation has passed the order under Section 45A of

the Act and that order has been challenged by the

respondent by filing an application before the ESI Court

under Section 75 of the Act. The application has been

registered as ESI Application No.4/2016. As per Section

75 of the Act, the ESI Court has to decide the matter as an

original jurisdiction. This Court in case of ‘M/S.ESCORT

LTD.’ (supra) has held as follows:

- 6 -

“It appears to us that the submission of Sri Papanna

that a strict view suggested by Sri Ullal