IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.06.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.R.C.No.1320 of 2023 Crl.M.P.Nos.10943 & 10944 of 2025 M/s.Baxter (India) Private Limited, Situated at 69-72, Sidco Pharmaceutical Complex, Althur – 603110, Kanchipuram District, Tamilnadu. A factor covered under the ESI Act, represented by Sanjiv Verma Managing Director. ... Petitioner Vs.

The Employees State Insurance Corporation, Having its Regional Office at No.143, Sterling Road, Chennai – 34, Rep. by Superintendent Legal, ESI Corporation, Chennai – 34. ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the orders dated 07.07.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.13616 of 2022 in C.C.No.3322 of 2013 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Egmore, Chennai for offences under Section 85(d) punishable under Section 85(ii) of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Manishankar, Senior Counsel, For Mr.C.Arun Kumar For Respondent : Mr.T.N.C. Kaushik

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order dated 07.07.2023, passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.13616 of 2022 in C.C.No.3322 of 2013, thereby dismissing the petition to discharge the petitioner from the charges.

2. The petitioner is a company and the respondent filed complaint as against the petitioner and two others alleging that the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of pharmaceuticals. The second and third accused are the Managing Directors of the first accused. The first accused had one of its factory at Kanchipuram District and it is covered under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the ESI Act”). While being so, one Gopu Sankaran was employed in the petitioner's company and on 17.10.2010, he met with an accident and had suffered with severe injuries. Therefore, he was on medical leave and received temporary disability benefits from the respondent for the period from 19.09.2010 to 07.05.2012. While being so, on 15.02.2012, the petitioner company terminated the employment of the said Gopu Sankaran and it is in violation of Section 73(1) of the ESI Act r/w 98 of the ESI General Regulations, 1950. Therefore, they have committed the offence under Section

85(d) punishable under Section 85(ii) of the ESI Act. Hence, the respondent lodged complaint and the same was taken cognizance by the trial Court in C.C.No.3322 of 2013. In view of the settlement arrived between the parties, the petitioner filed an application to discharge them from the charges. However, it was dismissed on the ground that the discharge petition is not maintainable in the summons case. Hence, the petitioner filed the present revision.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there are three accused in which, the petitioner is arrayed as A1. While one of the employees was on medical leave, he was terminated from his employment on 15.02.2012. Therefore, the respondent lodged complaint. On 01.02.2013, the employee and the petitioner have entered into settlement agreement and settled the issues by payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.11,15,653/-. As per Clause 11 of the settlement, the employee had agreed to withdraw the complaint as against the management before the ESI authorities under Section 73 of the ESI Act. However, the respondent proceeded with the complaint and as such the petitioner filed petition to discharge itself from the charges. However, it was dismissed on the ground that the discharge petition is not maintainable since it is a summon case.

3.1. He further submitted that on these grounds, the petitioner already approached this Court in Crl.O.P.No.12532 of 2014 to quash the entire proceedings along with other two directors in Crl.O.P.No.14261 of 2014. However, this Court by a common order dated 19.02.2020, dismissed the quash petiti