J. Santosh Kumar V. Union of India

WP/12417/2021

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by J. Santosh Kumar and J. Raqhu Kishor, sons of the late J. Param Kishan Rao, challenging an order issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) demanding a contribution of Rs.3,46,575 for the period from April 2016 to March 2020. The petitioners argued that the order was issued without jurisdiction and violated principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it was directed against a deceased person. The court examined whether the ESIC followed the correct procedural requirements under Section 45-A of the ESI Act, particularly in relation to the legal representatives of a deceased proprietor.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 675078 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NAMAVARAPU RAO; MUPPU REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: K PRATIK REDDY
• Keywords: Article 14; Employees' State Insurance; Jurisdiction; Legal representatives; Natural Justice; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 226; 45-A

Judgement Text

"I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION NO: 12417 OF 2021 Between: 1. J. Santosh Kumar, S/o. Late J. Param Kishan Rao, Occ. Business, R/o. 1-3-18314014614, ST 7 Gandhi 500080 AND 1 Ag N ed about 33 years, agar, Hyderabad - 2. J. Raqhu Kishor, S/o. Late J. Param Kishan Rao, Aged about 40 years, Occ. BusinEss, R/o. 1-3-183/4014614,5f 7 Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad - 500080 ...PETITIONERS Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Labour aM Employment, Government of lndia 2. The Deputy Director, Employees State lnsurance Corporation, Regional Office, 5-9-23, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad, Telangana. 3. The Director, Employees Slate lnsurance Corporation Regional Office, 5-9-23, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad, Telangana li ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direc{ion one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari. a. Call for records and quash the lmpugned Order issued by the Respondent. No' 2 vide No. TS/lNS-ll/52-00-041917-000{999 dated 3010412021 as without jurisdiction, violative of Article 45 - A of the Employees State lnsurance Act, 1948, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Article '14 of Constitution of lndia. I lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the lmpugned order issued by the Respondent No. 2 vide No. TS/INS- lll52-OO-O419'17-000-0999 dated 301O412021 during the pendency of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. PRATIK REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI MUPPU RAVINDER REDDY, s.c. FoR E.s.l.c. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.12417 of 2O2L ORDER: This writ petition is held challenging the order dated 30.O4.202L passed by the 2\"d respondent under Section 45-A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'ESI Act). 2. Heard Sri K. Pratik Reddy, Iearned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Muppu Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 3. Vide the impugned order dated 30.04.2021, the 2\"d respondent has determined an amount of Rs.3,46,575/- towards contribution for the period from 04 l2016 to 03l2O2O and directed the petitioners to deposit the said amount within fifteen (15) days from the date of said order. 4. According to Sri K. Pratik Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, one J.Param Kishan Rao is the Proprietor of the said M/s.Y.Sapphire Motors, propriety concern and the petitioners herein are sons of said J.Pararn Kishan Rao. The said Param Kishan Rao expired on 17.O9.2O2O. A show / 2 cause notice dated 2 1 . LO.2O2O was issued to a relative of said Param Kishan Rao and personal hearing was conducted on 16.11.2O2O and 2O.ll.2O2O. Sri D.Sai Sreedhar, relative of the Proprietor Mr.J.Param Kishan Rao, appeared before the 2\"d respondent during enquiry under Section 45-A of the ESI Act and informed the 2\"d respondent about the death of the Proprietor of the said propriet5i concern i.e., on 17 .O9 .2O2O. The said fact was also recorded in the impugned proceedings saying that relative of proprietor appeared. for personal hearing on 20.1 l.2O2O and he has not produced the records as sought. The said relative of him appeared on 04.12.2020 and produced the copies of death certificate of the Proprietor, balk transaction statements from 01.04.2O16 to 31.O7 .2O17 and Income Tax Assessment year returns from 2013 to 2018, Cancellation of VAT, VAT return 04/2016 to 04/2017 vide letter dated 04. 12.2O2O but other records as desired by this oflice during last personal hearing held on 25.I1.2O2O were not produced ald refused to sign in the note sheet of personal hearing. Therefore, harring noted the death of the Proprietor of the said propriety concern, the 2.a respondent instead of conducting proceedings against the / 3 legal heirs of the said Proprietor i.e., J.Param Kishan Rao, passed impugned order against M/s. Y. Sapphire Motors to which J.Param Kishan Rao is the Proprietor. Virtually the impugned order is against a dead person. 5. Section 2 (l7l of the ESI Act defines ?rincipal Employer'and it means in a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory and includes the managing agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased owner or occupier, and where a person has been named as the manager of the factory under (the Factories Act, 1948) the person so named. 6. Therefore, the 2nd respondent on coming to know about the death of the Proprietor of the concern, has to proceed against the legal representatives of the deceased owner of the particular establishment as per the procedure laid down under Section 45-A of the ESI Act. Whereas, in the present case, the impugned order is not against the legal representatives of the deceased owner and no opportunity was given to the legal representatives of the deceased owner. ) { ( I 4 7. As discussed supra, virtually, the impugned order is against a dead person and it is a nuflity. on the said short ground itself, w'ithout going into the mer.its of the case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. g' Therefore, the impugned order dated. 30.04.2027 passed under Section 45_A of the Act is set aside and accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed. However, liberty is granted to the 2\"d respondent to proceed against the legal representatives of late J.param Kishan Rao, the proprietor of M/s. Y.Sapphire Motors. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. _ SD/-M.MANJULA //rRUE copyl '*rl,F:f,T1S ro, sEcflON 6FrrcEn , 3:?J;ff1?l\"JH:,\",o of Labour and Emproymenr, Union of rndia, '5?f\"\"?slr%?i??'sk-:\"T51\",{rxT,.iltlr$\".ru*::corporation,Regionar t lili.?'Ifi3ia:,T,fl:Hs:.:?:i,'ff$T\"\" corporation Resionar orrice, 5-e-23, 4. One CC to SRt K. pRATtK REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl t Sli\"8Protpu3fl NnrtanvnRAPU RAJESHWAR RAo, Assistant Soricitor 6. One CC to SRt MUppU RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 7. Two CD Copies. 8. One Spare Copy MP SW e( HIGH COURT DATED:291OT12022 ORDER WP.No.12417 of 2O21 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .1 cot2fc4 W. {dttr'-- O;a /, -. I / I t '\"-i' ?ilu' "