9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1998-99. The petitioner being the principal employer was directed to make good the amounts together with interest. The said order was not challenged in any proceedings under section 75 of the ESI Act as required under law. Pursuant to the order passed under section 45A, the respondents issued notice proposing to attach the property of the petitioner and also threatened them with coercive action to recover the amount. 2. It is claimed by the petitioner that subsequent to the order passed by the respondents, they have paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 by a demand draft, dated January 6, 2005 and Rs. 2,89,028 by a further demand draft dated January 28, 2005, altogether a sum of Rs. 4,39,028. Notwithstanding the said payment, the petitioner was impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Thereafter, the Department gave a notice, dated July 19, 2003, demanding payment of a sum of Rs. 4,39,028 together with interest. Even after the management filed a reply and pointed out that because of sickness they should be allowed to pay it in instalments, the respondents did not agree for the same. Hence the entire amount was paid in two instalments as noted above. Notwithstanding the same, the respondents directed the management to pay interest and issued the impugned notice. 5. The writ petition was admitted on February 16, 2005. Pending the writ petition, this court granted an interim stay which was made absolute on March 15, 2005. On notice from this court, the respondents filed a counter affidavit, dated August 17, 2006. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for recovery of contribution through the court. Since this procedure was found to be impracticable and delayed process involved, a special provision was contemplated whereunder adjudication is to be made by the Corporation itself. By reason of incorporation of section 45A with effect from June 17, 1967, it became possible for the Corporation to have determination of the question, binding on the principal employer, without resorting to the ESI Court. In regard to the order under section 45A, the same is enforced, as envisaged under section 45B, which was similarly brought into the Act, by which the contribution may be recovered as arrears of land revenue. With regard to the decision reached by the ESI Court in the application under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment for the Corporation also to apply to the ESI Court to determine a dispute against an employer where it is satisfied that such a dispute exists. If there is no dispute in the determination either under section 45A(1) or under section 68, the Corporation can straightaway go for recovery of the arrears . . . 30. The Legislature has provided for a special remedy to deal with special cases. The determination of the claim is left to the Corporation, which is based on the information available to it. It shows whether information is sufficient or not or the Corporation is able to get information from the employer or not, on the available records, the Corporation could determine the arrears. So, the non-availability of the records after five y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at on the matter of interest, there cannot be any private negotiations and the interest is an automatic liability on the employer if there were delayed payments. The Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corpn. [2008] 8 SCC 705, had observed as follows : "9. As there was delay in making the payment of the contribution the Corporation had issued notice on June 29, 1990, at the first instance and thereafter the order was passed under section 45A of the Act on July 23, 1992. The same was challenged before the ESI Court in which an interim stay was granted on October 9, 1992. During the pendency of the matter there was reverification and the quantum payable by the appellant was worked out. The liability to pay inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her decisions cited in Yeshaswi Cashew v. State of Karnataka [2001] 124 STC 465 (Kar.) , is a judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, wherein Consolidated Coffee Ltd.'s case (supra), was followed. On the contrary, the reasoning given by the Supreme Court in Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works v. State of U.P. [1973] 32 STC 496, will squarely apply to the case on hand. The relevant paragraph may be usefully extracted below (page 500 of 32 STC) : "Argument has also been advanced by Mr. Sen that the interest on arrears of sales tax could not be realised for the period during which the recovery of sales tax was stayed. We find it difficult to accede to this contention because there is nothing in the language of section 8(1A) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
