FAO No.211/1999 Page 1 of 10

*

HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

FAO. No.211/1999

%

Judgment reserved on: 13^th July, 2009

Judgment delivered on: 21^st July, 2009

Employees‟ State Insurance Corp.

Through its Regional Director,

Regional Office,

DDA Shopping-cum-Office Complex,

Rajindra Place,

New Delhi

….Appellant

Through: Mr. K.P. Mavi, Adv.

Versus

M/s. B.S. Electro Chem,

9^th Mile Stone,

Bawana Road,

Delhi-110 042,

(Through its Managing Partner

S. Kuldip Singh)

…Respondent.

Through: Mr. Ved Prakash Trikha,

Adv.

Coram:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may

be allowed to see the judgment?

Yes

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported

in the Digest?

Yes

2009:DHC:2820

FAO No.211/1999 Page 2 of 10

V.B.Gupta, J.

Appellant has filed present appeal under Section

82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for

short as „Act‟) challenging the judgment dated 5^th

February, 1999, vide which Senior Civil Judge, Delhi,

allowed petition of respondent filed under Section 75

of the Act.

2. Brief facts of case are, that respondent is running

his factory at Bawana, Delhi. On 7^th December, 1989,

an inspector of appellant visited factory premises and

informed respondent that his factory along with office,

is covered under the provisions of the Act. Respondent

was

also

informed

that

they

will

receive

a

communication from the appellant in the shape of

“Code Number” so that he may deposit monthly

contributions of the employees.

3. In March, 1994, respondent received Code

Number “11-22623-34” from appellant and thereafter,

respondent started complying the provisions of the Act,

regularly w.e.f. 11^th March, 1994.

2009:DHC:2820

FAO No.211/1999 Page 3 of 10

4. In April, 1994, respondent received letter dated

25^th March, 1994, wherein he was asked to pay

contribution w.e.f. 25^th August, 1989. In July, 1994,

respondent received a show cause notice wherein, he

was asked to pay Rs.64,705.53p. as contribution for

the period from 25^th August, 1989.

5. Representative of respondent appeared before

appellant‟s Officer and explained the position about

non receipt of the Code Number. It is alleged that

appellant threatened to recover the contribution to the

tune of 62,435.35p along with the interest, which is

barred by time as well as illegal and unjustified.

6. Appellant contested the petition and stated that

respondent was given a Code Number, which was

intimated to him, vide letter dated 6^th March, 1990

which was duly sent and served upon respondent. In

spite of receipt of Code Number, respondent did not

bother to comply with the provisions of the Act and did

not make payment. It is denied that demand is barred

by time or illegal.

2009:DHC:2820

FAO No.211/1999 Page 4 of 10

7. Vide impugned judgment, trial court held;

“Petitioner

is

not

liable

to

pay

the

contribution for the period from 25^th August,

1989 to 31^st March, 1994 on adhoc basis,

and it is declared that the applicant could

not

make

the

compliance

under

the

provisions of the Act as he was not supplied

with the Code Number which is very

essential for making the compliance, and

the respondent is not competent in this case

to take any action against the application

under Section 45-A to 45-I of the ESI Act.

However, as submitted by the counsel for

the petitioner, the ESIC may recover the

actual amount on the basis of actual record

existing

in

the

office

and

factory

of

petition