M/S Hotel Windsor, Exhibition Road, Patna through Narendra Kumar, Director, M/s v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- E.S.I. Act, 1948 s. 45A
Judgment
Mr. Alok Kr.Shahi Mr. Archana Sinha Mr. Mukesh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anshuman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 4 19-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioners pray for quashing the order dated
10.7.2009 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 45A of E.S.I. Act, 1948 by which Rs. 32, 709/- has been assessed to be paid by the petitioner towards Employees Insurance Contributions being the principal employer. The case of the respondent is that the petitioners did not deposit the employees insurance contributions of security personnel engaged in his establishments. The petitioners submit that it would be security agency which would be liable for contributions. They had merely entered into an agreement with security agency to provide necessary security staffs. The Patna High Court CWJC No.12148 of 2009 (4) dt.19-04-2012 2 petitioners further submit that the security provider namely, Agar Security Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. has got E.S.I. Code No. 42-
11306. The Petitioners have made a grievance applications dated 1.4. 2009 was not considered by the Assessing Officer. From impugned order it appears application filed by the petitioners has not been considered by the respondent No. 2. As such, in the facts and circumstances of this case I remit the matter to the Assistant Director, (Insurance Branch), the Employees State Insurance Corporation (respondent No. 2) for fresh hearing. The petitioners would appear within a month from today before the Assistant Director with all relevant documents. The Assistant Director is directed to dispose of the application expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of its receipt. In case, the petitioners do not appear with their representations within one month, the impugned order would operate The impugned order dated 10.7.2009 passed by the Assistant Director, contained in Annexure-3 is kept in abeyance till adjudication, subject to filing of representations within a month. Ravi/- (Samarendra Pratap Singh, 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.