First Appeal No. 206 of 2013,Civil Application No. 747 of 2013

16th September, 2013

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. P.M. BHAGAT
Respondent Counsel: Mr. SHAILESH S. PATHAK

Cases Cited:
State Insurance Corporation, Bhopal Vs. Central Press, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1351 [Para 1]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (E.S.I. Act). The grievance of the appellant establishment governed under the Act is that the Employees' Insurance Court had rejected the grounds raised by the appellant in gross ignorance of the provisions of law and also ignored the evidence on record, since the appellant had filed an application under Section 75 of the E.S.I. Act before the learned Judge of the Employees' Insurance Court, challenging contributions stated under several heads of accounts for the period between 1994 to 199697. The learned Judge did not mention as to how conclusions were arrived at the figures mentioned in the impugned order under different heads of accounts. Learned Judge overlooked the fact that the respondent Corporation failed to discharge its burden. The learned Judge also ignored the fact that Insurance Inspector had visited premises of the appellant on several occasions and prepared reports, but then no courtesy was shown to furnish copy of the inspection reports to the appellant, to enable the appellant to defend the proceeding and assist the learned Judge regarding verification and inspection of records by the Inspectors concerned. Had it happened so, learned Employees' Insurance Court could have passed a speaking and reasoned order to determine contributions payable on behalf of the appellant. My attention is invited to ruling in Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bhopal vs. Central Press reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1351, wherein, Apex court observed that the Corporation itself should have gathered information under Section 45A to apprise the same to the Employees' Insurance Court, since it is duty of the Employees' Insurance Court to determine the basis of calculation, the Employees' Insurance court cannot expect Central Government to overcome such difficulty by an order or direction under Section 99A of the Act. In other words, the nature of the proceedings ought to be properly understood by the Employees' Insurance Court. Fairness required that when detailed reports in respect of various inspections made on various dates were submitted by the Insurance Inspector, and the Insurance Inspector admitted in the course of evidence that copies of the reports were not furnished to the establishment of the appellant (original applicant), it was necessary in the interest of natural justice and fairness that a detailed reasoned and speaking order could have been passed only after furnishing copies of the reports to the appellant (original applicant establishment) and after giving them an opportunity of hearing on the basis of those inspection reports and observation sheets. Atleast inspection of documents produced before the Employees' Insurance Court could have been granted, if copies could not be furnished.

2. Under these circumstances, impugned order suffers from vice of non-observance of rules of natural justice and for want of fairness to grant opportunity of hearing in the case before fixing and determining the amounts of contribution payable by the appellant. Hence impugned order is set aside.

3. The appeal is allowed with direction to the Employees' Insurance Court, Mumbai, to furnish copies of the inspection reports, observation notes etc. to the appellant.

4. If, for any reason, Employees' Insurance Court feels that copies of inspection reports / observation notes etc. could not be furnished, at least opportunity to inspect the documents produced be given to the appellant before passing final speaking and reasoned order according to law.

5. The hearing be held expeditiously.

6. Both the parties shall be at liberty to adduce further evidence, if they so desire, after having inspection of the documents i.e. inspection reports and observation notes.

7. The amount deposited if any, shall remain in the custody of the Employees' Insurance Court, till further directions according to law are issued by the said court, pursuant to this order.

8. Appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

9. Civil Application No.747 of 2013 becomes infructuous and stands disposed of.

Appeal allowed.