Raj Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 0303. 16.08.2012 Many a things have been said in the Writ Application on behalf of the petitioner, which are also insinuations in the manner in which the respondent authorities of the ESI have made an assessment and worked out the liability against the petitioner, arising…
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Prakash Verma Mr. Santosh Kumar Chauhan For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER ***************
16.08.2012 Many a things have been said in the Writ Application on behalf of the petitioner, which are also insinuations in the manner in which the respondent authorities of the ESI have made an assessment and worked out the liability against the petitioner, arising due to non-compliance or payment of the outstanding dues under the ESI Act, 1948. The first decision is contained in Annexure- 6 and other in the order passed in appeal, rejecting the claim of the petitioner against the action of the authorities to initiate a certificate proceeding and recover the dues. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself. The so called inspection was carried out behind the back of the petitioner and the assessment or Patna High Court CWJC No.11379 of 2007 (3) dt.16-08-2012 the calculation made on the number of employee is not based on evidence.
It is also contended that most of the grounds raised in the memo of appeal contained in Annexure- 8 has not been appreciated or met by the appellate authority in rejection of his appeal. Stand of the counsel for the ESI is that the proper forum for the petitioner to agitate his grievance against the order of adjudication has been provided under section 75 of the Act. There is no provision for appeal. Therefore all the stands taken by the petitioner with regard to the order passed in appeal contained in Annexure- 9, which is not actually an order in appeal, but a disposal of his application or objection raised by the petitioner, bonafidely. The Court called for the original records of the adjudication to satisfy itself with regard to the manner in which the proceeding had been conducted, the liability fastened and the kind of materials, which had emerged either from the side of the respondent authorities as well as the defence put up by the petitioner.
The Court prima facie is satisfied that not all the contentions or the averments made in the Writ Application reflect the true position. Patna High Court CWJC No.11379 of 2007 (3) dt.16-08-2012 The adjudication order is dated 07.05.2007 and the Writ Application has been filed on 31.08.2007. In that view of the matter, the Court is willing to give the petitioner an opportunity to take his grievance before the State Insurance Court, which I am informed is in functional state at this hour. The petitioner is left with the liberty of contending what he wants to contend before the said forum. The Court, therefore, has intentionally not expressed its opinion on the various facets of the arguments as well as the material, which is available on record from the original file. Writ Application, however, is dismissed with the liberty as above. It will be open to the petitioner to take advantage of condonation for delay in filing of the application due to pendency of the Writ Application before the High Court. SKM/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.