M/s. Sidda Reddy Labour Contractor V. The Union of India

WP/36205/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Sidda Reddy Labour Contractor, represented by its proprietor, who filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Union of India and other respondents concerning an order passed by the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad. The petitioner sought to challenge the order dated 06-04-2022 which was related to the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The petitioner contended that the lower court did not consider crucial documents like the audited statement of income and expenditure and other connected documents while rejecting the petitioner's request for dispensation of the deposit of 50% of the demanded amount. The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to provide necessary documentation to support his claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 674664 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B YADAV; G VENKATESH
• Assessee Lawyers: V REDDY
• Keywords: Employees' State Insurance; Income Tax Returns; Industrial Tribunal; Writ of Certiorari; Dispensation of Deposit; Audit Statement
• Section: 151; 226; 45A

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 36205 OF 2022 Between: M/s. Sidda Reddy Labour Contractor, Age 48 years,Plot No.9-'1456, YSR Colony Bollaram, Jinnaram- pin.502325 Rep. by its Proprietor ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of lndia, rep. by its Setretary Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of lndia, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi - '1 10001. 2. The Regional Director, ESIC, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad - 500063 3. The Dy Director, ESI Regional Office, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad-500063 4. The Recovery Officer, ESIC Regional Office Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad- 500063 ...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in respect of the order dated 06-04-2022 passed by the Hon'ble Employees lnsurance Court and Chairman, lndustrial Tribunal-|, at Hyderabad in 1.A.No.120 ot 2022 in Sr No. 529 of 2022 and consequently set aside the same. Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 06-04-2022 passed by the Hon'ble Employees lnsurance lA NO: 'l OF 2022 Court and Chairman, lndustrial Tribunal-|, at Hyderabad in lA.No.'120 of 2022 in Sr No 529 of 2022 lill the disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for lhe Petitioner:SRl. V.THIRUPATHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1:SMT. B.KAVITHA YADAV (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent No's 2 to 4:SRl G.VENKATESH (SC FOR ESIC) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition N .36205 of 2022 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for issue of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in respect of the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by Employees Insurance Cout and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal{, Hyderabad, in I.A. No.120 of 2022 in Sr.No.529 ot 2022. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.B.Kavitha Yadav, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1't respondent, and Sri G.Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondents 2 to 4, and with their consent, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission 3. Petitioner contends that aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd Respondent under section 45A of Employees'State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short,'the Act), he has approached the Tribunal by filing an appeal in Sr.No.529 of 2022; that along with the said appeal, petitioner also filed I.A.No.120 of 2022, seeking dispensation of the deposit of 50o/o of the demanded amounu that the Court below, without considering the fact that the petitioner did not do any business or that he has no employees, in respect of whom he is required to discharge his liability under the Act, and also without considering the material placed before it, has summarily rejected the said IA, observing that the ri petitioner/ applicant did not file any documents showing the number of employees engaged or retained by him. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the number of employees engaged by the petitioner during the period could not be produced before the Court below, since the ESI portal of the respondents was locked and as the petitioner did not remember the password of the online portal, the said list could not be furnished. Learned counsel would further contend that even though he has produced audited statement of income and expenditure and other connected documents, like income-tax returns etc.. the Court below did not consider the same, while disposing the said IA. 5. Sri G.Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4, would contend that the order of the Court below does not suffer from any error, since the petitioner had failed to produce the list of employees engaged or retained by him, at the relevant point of time, and thus, based on the previous year record, the authorities have determined the liability. 6. I have taken note oFthe above contentions. 7. Though the petitioner contends that the Court below did not take into consideration the Audit statement issued by the Auditor showing his income and expenditure, the same, in the view of this J Court' does not in any way show that the petition€ any business activity. However .\":\"_^\",- ptuuoner did not undertake has earned an income :**\"r, considering the fact that the petitioner income nred ,,0., ,,.ou,'j,j:':::-:r\", as rere*ed in the return or the view that ends or rrr't'ont of the Income Tax Act' this court is oF deposit 25% of the amo would met' ir the petitioner is directed to unt determined by the 3.d respondent under his proceedings dated 16.02,2018 within a period of four (04) weeks hereof. Subject to payment of the above amount as directed by this Court, the Court below shall entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dt.06.04.2022 passed under Section 45A of the Act and dispose of the same on its own merits. 8, Subject to the above direction, the Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. AMMAJI / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ./ SECTIONFOFFICER \"'' IJI:f 3'[?:?Y#'J,lii g#-\"1i\"il;'nf,\"fl Rl;[,:{,t yifdtii.:J:' G o vt of ;, i[' H-:{fli3d;fl*:EE1\"JflH'lff{ [[B il h'fiflT!: :1ili,3\" :; :11'f EiBs#l'[H,$,YPArHrsfvDPcYEft +'ff fl '3to'i'3au*\"'r' , i#t\"Atet3[l'3ft,*'=sH (sc FoR ESrc)' Advocate [.PUC] a. Two CD CoPies' 0. One Spare CoPY' GB GJP - t HIGH COURT DATED:2010912022 ORDER WP.No.36205 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COS i: ll.t SEP (:. i-' ?4 ?m o , ,w "