ORDER

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.81 of 2009, dated 24.10.2018 on the file of the E.S.I.Court (Labour Court), Madurai

2.The appellant/petitioner has filed a petition in E.S.I.O.P.No.81 of 2009, under Section 75(1)(g) of the E.S.I. Act, to declare the order passed by the 1st respondent under Section 45(A) of the E.S.I.Act, dated

07.10.2009 as illegal and without jurisdiction.

3.The case of the appellant/petitioner is that the petitioner is a partnership firm manufacturing all springs and other allied products and having its factory at Masthanpatti Village which is not a place notified under the E.S.I. Act. The Inspector of the 1st respondent E.S.I.Corporation inspected the petitioner's factory and advised the petitioner to pay contribution for their workers from 01.04.2004, on the basis of the same the 2nd respondent had issued a letter, dated 20.01.2005 by allotting a code No.57-65029-56 and directed to pay contribution for their workers from

01.04.2004. Though the factory of the petitioner is functioning in a non- notified area, the petitioner has been paying the contribution under E.S.I. Act, under protest. Further, the petitioner has made a request to the respondent to decide the jurisdictional issue and the respondent has not chosen to decide the same till the date of filing of the present petition. The respondent E.S.I. Corporation has made a claim of Rs.7,56,275/-towards E.S.I. contribution payable for the period from 4/2004 to 3/2007 under the Heads of contract wages and a claim of Rs.8,86,124/-towards manufacturing labour charges for the very same period. In the inspection report, no particulars were given regarding the number of contract workers employed by the petitioner through independent contractors. The petitioner is not liable to pay contribution of Rs.7,56,275/-as per order, dated 07.10.2009 under Section 45(A) of E.S.I.Act. The claim of the respondent corporation, the assessment made under Section 45(A) of E.S.I.

Act is illegal and unsustainable.

4.The respondent has filed counter and stated that the respondent corporation has been established by an enactment of the Parliament called the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 to provide medical and cash benefits to the workers and their families in case of sickness, disability due to accidents, maternity etc. For providing these benefits, the respondent corporation collects contribution at the rate of 1.75% of the wages of each worker, covered/coverable under the said Act and 4.75% of the total wages of all such workers from the employer. The case relates to coverage and claiming contributions. If stay is granted against such recovery of contributions, then the respondent corporation will not be able to provide benefits to the needy workers and their families.

5.It is further stated that in all the correspondence with the respondent corporation till date, the petitioner/employer has mentioned the address and location of the factory only as “No.3-A, Annai Street, Seeman Nagar, Karuppayurani P.O., Madurai – 20 and only in the present petition the petitioner has mentioned the location of the factory as “Masthanpatti”. The dispute has been raised in the matter of coverage for the first time with the wrong allegation that the factory is located in Masthanpatti without mentioning the revenue village and the said issue is barred by limitation. The respondent E.S.I. Corporation has issued C-18 notice on 15.05.2009 proposing to claim contribution of Rs.16,42,399/-. After hearing the petitioner on 08.06.2009 and 07.08.2009 and 11.08.2009 a speaking order was passed under Section 45A of E.S.I. Act on 07.10.2009 determining the contribution payable as Rs.7,56,275/-and the same was not responded by the petitioner. Hence, recovery notice in Form C-19 dated 26.10.2009 was issued by the respondent. The petitioner is well aware of the E.S.I. liability, the present petition filed is an after though and the same is liable