M/s.GDA Technoligies Ltd v. The Deputy Director
Case at a glance
- Bench
- M JAICHANDRENWRIT
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of with the aboveobservations
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not refuted the statements made by the learned counsel for the respondent that an appeal remedy is available to the petitioner, under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Thelearned counsel appearing…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 13-11-2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.3328 of 2003M/s.GDA Technoligies Ltd.,rep. by its Authorised SignatoryV.K.MuraliNo.24, Bawa Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. .. Petitioner. VersusThe Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, No.143, Sterling Road, Chennai-600 034. .. Respondent. Prayer: This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent bearingNo.TN/Ins-III/51-77136-66/2720/02, dated 31.12.2002, and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.G.VasudevanFor Respondent : Mr.K.C.Ramalingam (R1)
O R D E RThis writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent, bearingNo.TN/Ins-III/51-77136-66/2720/02, dated 31.12.2002, and quash the same.2. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 45A of the Employees' State InsuranceAct, 1948, is not applicable to the petitioner Company, since it isa computer company, employing only 7 employees, drawing a salary ofRs.6500/- and above. Further, the learned counsel had submitted that the reply, dated 9.1.2003, submitted by the petitionerCompany, to the show cause notice, dated 14.3.2002, had not been considered by the respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the impugned order, dated 31.12.2002, passed by the respondent, is in accordance with law. However, if the petitioner company is aggrieved by the said order, it is open to the company to challenge the same by filing an appeal, under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.
Operative part
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not refuted the statements made by the learned counsel for the respondent that an appeal remedy is available to the petitioner, under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Thelearned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to file an appeal before the appropriate Court, under Section 75 of the Employees' StateInsurance Act, 1948, within four weeks from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order.5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondent, this Courtis of the view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. However, the petitioner is permitted to avail the appeal remedy provided, under Section 75 of the Employees' StateInsurance Act, 1948, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. sd/-Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarcshTo The Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, No.143, Sterling Road, Chennai-600 034.+ 1 c.c. to Mr. K.C. Ramalingam, Advocate. S.R.No.63694.+ 1 c.c. to Mr. N. Kanagasabai, Advocate. S.R.No.63285.Writ Petition No.3328 of 2003JP (CO)GSK 19.11.2008.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of with the aboveobservations
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.