IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

WRIT PETITION No.7568 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

The Management of

M/s. Adyar Anand Bhavan

Sweets India Pvt. Ltd.,

#66/4, 13^th Cross,

L.N. Puram, Srirampuram,

Bengaluru-560 021.

Represented by its:

Partner,

Mr. Srinivasa Raja K.T. ...Petitioner

(By Sri. Anand K.R, Advocate)

AND:

The Regional Director,

Regional Office [Karnataka]

Employees State Insurance Corporation,

#10, Binnyfields, Binnypet,

Bengaluru-560 023. ...Respondent

(By Sri. V. Narasimha Holla, Advocate)

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C

praying to quash the sanction order dated:22.07.2013 issued

by respondent at Annexure-K and quash the complaint

W.P.No.7568/2016

2

dated:25.07.2013 in C.C.No.133/13 at Annexure-L before

the Special Court for Economic offences – Bengaluru

preferred by the Social Security Officer on behalf of

respondent.

This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’

group, this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

The petitioner, which claims that it is a partnership

firm

engaged

in

the

business

of

preparation/manufacturing of sweets and selling of such

sweets through its 30 outlets situated all over the State

of Karnataka, has sought for a writ of Certiorari, for

quashing the Sanction Order dated 22.07.2013 issued

by the respondent as at Annexure-K and also quashing

of private complaint filed by the respondent against the

petitioner herein, dated 25.07.2013, as per Annexure-L.

2.

The summary of the private complaint which

is at Annexure-L is that the complainant which is

Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Bengaluru

W.P.No.7568/2016

3

(hereinafter referred to as “Corporation” for the sake of

brevity) has alleged that the present petitioner who is

accused in the said complaint has not extended its co-

operation and assistance in the employees of the

accused getting the photographs for issuance of identity

card by ESI department, as such, there is violation of

Regulation 16 of the Employees’ State Insurance

(General) Regulations, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as

“ESI Regulations” for the sake of brevity), as such, an

offence under Section 85(g) which is punishable under

Section 85(ii) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act,

1948 (hereinafter referred to as “ESI Act” for the sake of

brevity) has been committed.

3.

It is the contention of the petitioner as well

the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that

there is no specific allegation as to in what way there

was no assistance from the petitioner-accused and in

W.P.No.7568/2016

4

what way there was violation of Section 85(g) of the ESI

Act. It is further the argument that at the maximum,

the employer can only request its employees to go to

the ESI office and pose for photograph to prepare

identity card. All such sincere efforts were made by the

petitioner. Apart from that the petitioner-accused has

also sent several e-mails to the respondent-Corporation

requesting them to hold the camps in their (of the

petitioner’s) several of the branches, as such, the task

of taking photographs of thousands of employees can be

completed at the earliest. Despite which, there is no

response from the respondent-Corporation. On the

contrary, the Corporation has issued a show-cause

notice alleging false allegation of no assistance from the

petitioner-Firm.

W.P.No.7568/2016

5

4.

Perused the writ petition and all its annexures

carefully.

5.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner-Firm is

covered under the ESI Act, as such, it has got an

obligation