1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for alleged violation of ESI Act, 1948 by principal employer. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 14845
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J
North Chennai Thermal Power Station – II – Appellant
Versus
Employees' State Insurance Corporation – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.835 of 2021 | Crl.M.P.No.506 of 2021
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Haroon Al Rasheed
For the Respondents: S.P.Srinivasan
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Haroon Al Rasheed
For the Respondents: S.P.Srinivasan
A contractor independently registered with a code number under the ESI and Provident Fund Acts is treated as an "independent employer," exempting the principal employer from vicarious liability for the contractor's statutory compliance failures.
Headnote:(A) Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Section 85(ii) - Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 - Regulation 12 and 14 - Principal Employer Liability - Where a contractor is registered as an independent entity with its own registration code under the ESI Act and Provident Fund Act, such contractor is treated as an "independent employer" - The principal employer cannot be held vicariously liable for the contractor's failure to register employees or for statutory contraventions by a registered contractor. (Paras 3 and 10)
Facts of the case:
A power station engaged a contractor for the collection of ash. An employee of the said contractor met with a fatal accident. The Respondent initiated criminal proceedings against both the contractor and the power station, treating the power station as the principal employer, alleging violation of registration timelines under the ESI Act. The power station sought to quash the proceedings on the ground that the contractor was an independently registered entity with its own ESI code.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the contractor was independently registered with the Provident Fund Authority and the Employees State Insurance Corporation. Therefore, the contractor was the responsible employer, and the principal employer could not be held liable for the failure to register the employee.
Issues: Whether a principal employer can be held liable for statutory violations under the ESI Act when the contractor engaged is an independently registered entity with its own ESI code.
Ratio Decidendi: Following the principle that contractors who are registered with the Provident Fund Department and have independent code numbers are to be treated as "independent employers," the court ruled that the liability for registration and contributions falls solely on the registered contractor, not the principal employer.
Result: Petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- labour and industrial law
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued contractor was independent registered entity; respondent argued disputed facts require trial evidence. (Para 3 , 5 )
3. Contractor registered under ESI Act is independent employer; reply to show cause notice ignored by respondent. (Para 9 , 10 )
4. Registered independent contractor is principal employer; no liability can be fastened on the party engaging such contractor. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Criminal proceedings quashed against petitioners; trial to continue against the registered contractor. (Para 10 )
6. Can a principal employer be prosecuted under the ESI Act if the contractor is a registered independent entity?
No, because a contractor registered under the ESI Act with its own code number is treated as an independent employer, and the principal employer incurs no vicarious liability. (Para 3 , 9 , 10 )
7. What is the effect of ignoring the reply to a show cause notice before filing a complaint?
Failure to consider or reject the reply makes the complaint liable to be quashed as an abuse of process of law. (Para 9 , 10 )
8. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can a court quash proceedings based on undisputed legal position without trial?
Yes, when the complaint itself reveals no prima facie offence or is based on a clear misinterpretation of law, quashing is justified. (Para 3 , 9 , 10 )
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition had been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in C.C.No.1228 of 2020 now pending trial on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and quash the proceedings in so far as the Petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.Haroon Al Rasheed
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
For Respondent : Mr.S.P.Srinivasan
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition had been filed seeking to call for the records in C.C.No.1228 of 2020 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and quash the proceedings in so far as the Petitioners are concerned.
2.The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted his arguments. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners – M/s.North Chennai Thermal Power Station, Athipattu, which is a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking, is involved in generation of electricity. It has Thermal Stations in various locations. The Petitioners – M/s.North Chennai Thermal Station is one of such power stations. In order to carry on various activities, the Thermal Power Station had called for tender and awarded works to various persons. The third party agencies are required to depute their employees to work inside the premises of the Power Stations. In order to handle the collection of ash, the Power Station had utilized the services of M/s.Chennai Radha Engineering Works (P) Limited which has its registered office at Sapthagiri Colony, Jafferkhanpet, Chennai. The said establishment not only carries out work for the North Chennai Thermal Power Station, TANGEDCO but also has various other activities. The Company M/s.Chennai Radha Engineering Works (P) Limited is registered under the Provident Funds Act as well as the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation Registration number is 32000030260001001. Further, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that M/s.Chennai Radha Engineering Works (P) Limited had employed one Shri.Yaduwar Singh who was deputed to work in North Chennai Thermal Power Station from 01.07.2019. The employer M/s.Chennai Radha Engineering Works (P) Limited tried to register Shri.Yaduwar Singh in the online portal of Employees' State Insurance Corporation. However, due to mismatch of Aadhaar details his name could not be registered. Later, his name was registered only on 08.07.2019 and was given Registration No.5129937392. Unfortunately, on the same day he met with a fatal accident. On 09.07.2019 M/s.Chennai Radha Engineering Works (P) Limited submitted an accident report. The Petitioners paid a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the legal heirs of Shri.Yaduwar Singh as per its policy even though there was no legal obligation on the Petitioners to do so. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation issued a notice to M/s.Chennai Radha Engineering Works (P) Limited on 29.10.2019 alleging that they had violated the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 as they had not registered the employee within time. M/s.Chennai Radha Engineering Works (P) Limited gave reply on 08.11.2019. However, not satisfied with the reply, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation had filed a complaint in C.C.No.1228 of 2020 against the Managing Director of M/s.Chennai Radha Engineering Works (P) Limited. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that as far as the Petitioners are concerned, the same show cause notice was also sent to the Petitioners. On 15.11.2019, the Petitioners in its reply stated that the employer who had engaged Shri.Yaduwar Singh was M/s.Chennai Radha Engineering Works (P) Limited and that they are the Company which had been independently registered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Therefore, the question of prosecuting this Petitioners under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 does not arise. Further, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners invited the attention of
