0

Madras High Court names Classic cases of lethargic attitude of the bureaucrats in our country.

Blog, blog , , ,

Case Title:   MA.Ranjith.                                               … Petitioner
                                               Versus

The Director General of Police.                       … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Pronounced On 26.06.2023

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND.

Citation: W.P. No.6901 of 2020.

Introduction:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to
issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondent to consider the representation dated 14.12.2019 submitted by the petitioner and for a consequential direction to the respondent to release the salary and benefits, which has to be paid to the petitioner in the interest of justice.

Facts:

The petitioner is the Inspector of Police working in Dharmapuri District. He contends that he has been discharging his duties with great honesty and due to his honest only, he had been transferred very often and he further submitted that he had been transferred nearly 39 times in his 20 years of service. He further contends that due to some high official issue, he had been transferred now and then and due to some higher official pressure and misadministration, his salary is kept hold for a long time. He also contends that he had submitted many representation to the administrative department about his pending salary, but no steps are taken till now. It is further stated by the petitioner that for four months i.e., from August to September 2019 salaries are also not paid. As he is totally depending on his salary, he is unable to manage his regular life and family. He also submits that his wife is suffering from cancer and he has to take care of her medical expenses and also his two children education and maintenance. In such circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition.

Issues:

  • Whether there was any violation ofright to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
  • Whether  the actionof the respondent is not only illegal, unjust and arbitrary?

Legal Analysis:

When an Inspector of Police cadre officer submits a representation to the Director General of Police, who is the head of the Police Department to the State, if the said representation did not see the light of the day and no action is initiated, it itself proves how the petitioner is being harassed. If the respondent requires any further information from the petitioner to consider his representation and to pass appropriate orders, it is for the respondent to intimate. The petitioner admittedly, such intimation is not issued to the petitioner by the respondent.
This is one of the classic cases of lethargic attitude of the bureaucrats in our country. Every employee, who discharges his duties honestly, he would expect payment of his salary regularly from the employer, without any unreasonable delay. The employee has to survive himself and he has to feed his family and also to take care of all necessities of his family members, from the salary, he is getting. In the present case, as the petitioner contends that his wife is suffering from cancer, definitely, he has to meet her medical expenses. Due to non payment of salary and non-consideration of his representation for four years i.e., from the year 2019, all the members of the family of the petitioner had suffered mentally and financially. Thereby, they are forced to suffer irreparable loss and hardships.

Judgement:

As such, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the respondent has failed to discharge his duty to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner on 14.12.2019, which is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, irrational and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court noted that in the present case, though notice was ordered in March 2020, no counter-affidavit was filed. The court on June 21 had directed the Government Advocate to get instructions with regard to the status of the representation filed by Ranjith. Upon perusing the status report filed by the Additional Advocate General, the court found that though some reasons were mentioned, the same seemed to have been invented to file the status report and that the representation had not been disposed of by the DGP. The court allowed the petition and directed the DGP to take appropriate action within a week. “In the present case, as the petitioner contends that his wife is suffering from cancer, definitely, he has to meet her medical expenses. Due to non-payment of salary and non-consideration of his representation for four years i.e., from the year 2019, all the members of the family of the petitioner had suffered mentally and financially. Thereby, they are forced to suffer irreparable loss and hardships,” said the court. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the
respondent to examine the representation dated 14.12.2019 submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate action within a period of one week from 26.06.2023.

Conclusion:

While providing relief to a Police Inspector with respect to his pending salary, the Madras High Court criticized the Director General of Police for n not considering the representation made by him in 2019. The action of the respondent is not only illegal, unjust and arbitrary and it is violation of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

The Writ Court can never adjudicate the issues on the basis of documents Says Madras High Court.

blog, Blog , , ,

Case Title:   Sulthan Beevi.                                               … Petitioner                                  
                                              Versus

The Director of Town and Country Planning and  Anrs        … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Pronounced On 27.06.2023

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN.

Citation: W.P(MD)No.1770 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.1557 & 1558 of 2022.

Introduction:

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent pertaining to Na.Ka.No.2752/2020 TN2, dated 12.11.2021 granting technical approval vide Ko.O.Ma.Va/Na.Vuu.Vu.E (Tha.Maa) No.37/2021 to regularize the unapproved layout called “IBN BATTUTA CITY” formed by the respondents 5 and 6 and quash the same in so far as the lands comprised in SR.Nos.376/1B, 376/2 and 376/4B to an total extent of 50 cents in Soolamangalam 2- Sethi Revenue Village, Ayyampettai Town Panchayat, Thanjavur District.

Facts:

The petitioner had claimed that the property aforementioned belong to her grandfather Meeran Mydeen. During his life time, he had allotted the property to his 4 sons by executing four different registered settlement deeds. The petitioner’s father, Mohammed Ismail, stood benefited to the properties aforementioned measuring 50 cents in Survey Nos.376/1B,
376/2 and 376/4B in Soolamangalam 2 – Sethi Revenue Village, Ayyampetti Town Panchayat, by a settlement deed, dated 26.10.1997, registered as document No.1022 of 1977 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Ayyampetti.
The petitioner further stated that her father died intestate on 04.03.1992 leaving behind her mother and two other brothers of the petitioner. One of the brother died and the mother had also died. The petitioner claimed that she is in possession along with the other brother, but who however, is now abroad. The petition claimed that she is therefore, directly interested in the lands aforementioned and she came to know that the respondents 5 and 6 had formed a layout of a large area of the property, including the property aforementioned. Claiming that her property had been unlawfully included in the layout, the Writ Petition has been filed seeking interfernce with the order granting such approval of the lay out.

Issues:

  • If the grand father had settled excess lands, then what he was allotted in the partition deed, then the issue of title itself must be adjudicated?
  • Whether  the Writ Court can  adjudicate the issues on the basis of documents?

Legal Analysis:

The petitioner claims that the approval granted for the lay out bit “IBN BATTUTA CITY” in Soolamangalam 2 – Sethi Revenue Village, Ayyampetti Town Panchayat, Thanjavur District, by the respondents 1 and 2 should be interefered with, since she claimed title to
50 cents of lands in Survey Nos.376/1, 376/2 and 376/4. The flow of title for the said lands is not direct but rather had taken various turns and twist. The lands originally belonged to the
grand father of the petitioner and his brother Abdul Khader. They had entered into a parition deed. By the partition, the grand father was allotted portions of land in each one of the survey numbers. If he where to deal with the lands subsequently, by a further settlement deeds
infavour of his sons, then he could do so only with respect to the lands which had been allotted to him under the partition deed.
But a perusal of the record shows that he had dealt with excess land. Once this fact stares in the face of the petitioner, the petitioner should institute a suit seeking a relief to divide the lands, to demarcate the lands, to identify the lands and to partition the lands and to sub-divide the lands. Without a suit for declaration of title, as against her own paternal uncle since there has been a overlapping of lands in the four separate settlement deeds executed by the paternal grand father, the petitioner can never claim exclusive title for 50 cents of lands in the
aforementioned 3 survey numbers. She can claim joint title, but it is only with her brother who is surviving, and more importantly with the legal heirs of with her paternal uncles as there has been four separate settlement deeds executed by her grand father.

The records reveal that the paternal grand father of the petitioner had settled 24 cents of land in excess in survey No.376/1 in favour of his 4 sons. He had similarly, settled 21 cents of land in excess in Survey No.376/4. These facts may be right. These facts may be wrong, but the only forum to test these facts is the Civil Court where the settlement deeds will have to be put to test and marked as documents and will have to pass the test of admissibility, of proof and of being relevant. The partition deed will have to be examined. The schedule of the lands
in the partition deed between her grand father and his brother will have to be examined. Thereafter, the lands which was allotted to her grand father will have to be crystalized. Thereafter, the four settlement deeds executed by the grand father will have to be examined. The lands settled will have to be identified and finally the lands settled to the father of the
petitioner herein will have to be identified. If the grand father had settled excess lands, then what he was allotted in the partition deed, then the issue of title itself must be adjudicated. That would be a question to be adjudicated not between the petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6, but between the petitioner and her paternal uncles who were the beneficiaries of the settlement deeds executed by her grand father. Without there being a proper demarcation of lands, there can never be an adjudication in this Writ Petition on the basis of an affidavit.

Judgement:

It is thus seen that the petitioner will necessarily have to approach the Civil Court, seek necessary relief, to identify the lands and then, question the approval if the lands are identified and if they fall within the lands for which lay out was approved in favour of the
respondents 5 and 6. Without that preliminary examination of title, of possession and of demarcation of lands, this Court never can adjudicate on the issue raised by the petitioner. I cannot grant any relief to the petitioner herein. The petitioner should put the horse before the cart. She should first institute a suit, identify her lands and then question the approval order, if the lands fall within the approval granted for the lay out formed by the respondents 5 and 6. She cannot approch the Writ Court first and seek an order. The Writ Court can never adjudicate the issues on the basis of documents.

Conclusion:

The records reveal that the paternal grand father of the petitioner had settled 24 cents of land in excess in survey No.376/1 in favour of his 4 sons. He had similarly, settled 21 cents of land in excess in Survey No.376/4. These facts may be right. These facts may be wrong, but the only forum to test these facts is the Civil Court where the settlement deeds will have to be put to test and marked as documents and will have to pass the test of admissibility, of proof and of being relevant. The partition deed will have to be examined. So the court says The Writ Court can never adjudicate the issues on the basis of documents.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

 

0

Madras High Court orders Compensate to the illegal detention of the women and minor.

blog, Blog , , , ,

Case Title:   Guru @ Paramaguru

                                               … Petitioner / Husband of the detenue                                     
                                              Versus

The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy and  Anrs    

                                                                                  …Respondents

Date of Decision:  Pronounced On 28.06.2023

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR 

                                      AND

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

Citation: H.C.P. (MD) No. 697 of 2023 

Introduction:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the 1st  respondent to produce the person or body of the petitioner’s wife, namely, Saktheeswari, W/o.Guru @ Paramaguru, aged about 37 years from the illegal custody of the respondents 2 to 4 before this Court and set her at liberty. When this Habeas Corpus Petition is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents would submit that he has received instructions from Mr.Asra Garg, Inspector General of Police, Madurai South Zone, Madurai that he has completed enquiry only by 22.06.2023 as directed by this Court and he would file a report before this Court on 28.06.2023without fail. It is made clear that the evidence that has been produced before this Court by way of electronic form (pen drive) along with the report filed by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai, shall be preserved by the Additional Registrar General of this Bench for future usage.

Facts: 

  • Summons were issued to a woman to appear in Police Station for examination in violation of section 160 of Criminal Procedure Code.
  • Detention of three persons including a woman anda child aged 16 years for more than 24 hours.
  • Unwarranted registration of a criminal case against Tmt. P. Saktheeswari and Tr. S. Sethupathi in Thottiyam PS Cr.No.154 of 2023 u/s 294(b) IPC to screen the detention.
  • The petitioner, seeking production of his wife, namely, Saktheeswari, aged about 37 years, has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition.
  • The husband of the detenue has beenarrayed as an accused, the respondents 2 to 4 had tortured her and she literally cried before this Court, saying that her and her children’s life are in danger at the hands of the respondents 2 to 4.

Issues:

  • Whether the summon issued to the women person is in violation of proviso to Section 160 Cr.P.C?
  • Whethe the three persons were detained, including the women and a child aged about 16 years more than 24 hours without the authority of law?
  • Whether there was an unwarranted registration of criminal case against the detenue and another person one Sethuraman in Crime No.154 of 2023 under Section 294 IPC to screen the detention?

Legal Analysis:

The enquiry report submitted by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai, is exhaustive with supportive and corroborative elements with circumstances and other statements that have been recorded from the persons or witnesses or police officials or police
men and produced before this Court in electronic form. Therefore, prima facie the Court has to accept the report, as there has been no reason to raise any doubt over the said report submitted by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.

On three grounds, there has been a complete violation on the part of the respondent Police in dealing with the matter. The first one is that summon issued to the women person is in violation of proviso to Section 160 Cr.P.C.. The second is that the three persons were detained, including the women and a child aged about 16 years more than 24 hours without the authority of law and the third one is an unwarranted registration of criminal case against the detenue and another person one Sethuraman in Crime No.154 of 2023 under Section 294 IPC to screen the detention.Since these three violations are serious in nature, which have been found out by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai in his enquiry and it has been stated in the report, we, having accepted the said report, feel that further follow up action by way of proper enquiry on these violations shall go on.

The Court directs the Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy to take further action on the three violations pointed out by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai in his report dated 28.06.2023. In this regard, an independent team shall be formed to further enquire the matter on the basis of the evidences collected by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai and accordingly, necessary disciplinary action shall be initiated against the erring police officials as well as the police men, who involved in such violation and such
disciplinary proceedings shall be permitted to reach its logical conclusion on merits.

Judgement:

Insofar as the illegal detention of the detenue women and minor ie., under the age of 18 is concerned, it is open to the detenue to seek for remedial measure, including the compensation before the concerned forum in the manner known to law. Since the detenue has been set at free and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents has submitted that there is no arrest in any case and she is not in the custody and she is free now, the detenue can either join with the family or can lead her comfortable life.
Therefore, this Habeas Corpus Petition can be closed to that extent, accordingly, it is closed.
However, insofar as the criminal case that has been registered against the husband of the detenue is concerned, it is open to the respondent Police to proceed with the investigation further in accordance with law and let the case be taken into its logical conclusion based on the evidences to be collected by the respondent Police. The Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy shall file a compliance report with regard to the aforesaid directions after three months.
For the said purpose, The matter was posted on 03.10.2023. It is made clear that the evidence that has been produced before this Court by way of electronic form (pen drive) along with the report filed by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai, shall be preserved by the Additional Registrar General of this Bench for future usage.

Conclusion:

When this Habeas Corpus Petition came up for hearing on 15.06.2023, the respondent Police had produced the detenue before this Court, who had made some allegations against the respondent Police ie., the respondents 2 to 4 that in the name of enquiring the detenue in connection with the case, where the petitioner ie.,the husband of the detenue has been arrayed as an accused, the respondents 2 to 4 had tortured her and she literally cried before this Court, saying that her and her children’s life are indanger at the hands of the respondents 2 to 4. Since there was illegal detention of the respondents should compensate to the detenue.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Madras High Court Refuses to Stay Release Of ‘Maamannan’ Movie.

Blog, blog , , , ,

Case Title:  Mr. Ramasaravanan               … Petitioner

                                              Versus
                    Udayanidhi Stalin and  Anrs     … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Pronounced On 28.06.2023

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU 

Citation:  O.A. No.562 of 2023 and A.NO. 3179 OF 2023 in C.S. No. 109 of 2023.

Introduction:

 The Madras High Court has refused to stall the relese of Udayanidhi starrer movie “Maamannan”. The court passed orders on a plea filed by Producer Ramasaravanan seeking injunction against the release of the movie and further to direct Udayanidhi Stalin to complete the shooting in a previously agreed upon film titled “Angel”.

These applications have been taken out seeking for an interim
injunction restraining from in any manner whatsoever releasing the film
titled as “Maamannan” without completing the shooting schedule and
dubbing of the film titled as “Angel” and also for interim direction to direct
the 1st respondent/ defendant to complete the shooting and dubbing of the
film titled “Angel” so as to enable the applicant/ plaintiff to release the film.

Facts:

The applicant would submit that applicant is engaged in the business of film production and had produced various Tamil Cinematographic films and is a Proprietor of an established banner and has got a very good reputation in the film industry. He would submit that the applicant had entered upon an agreement with the third party for directing a film that is titled as “Angel”, in which the 1st respondent herein was to feature as a lead hero. He would
submit that the arrangement between the applicant and the 1st respondent was an oral arrangement and that an amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Five Lakhs only) was to be paid a remuneration to the 1st respondent. He would also submit that a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) had been paid to him as part payment. The shooting was scheduled and would submit that 80% of the work is over and what is left out was the scenes which would have to be shooted to fill up certain gaps and dubbing as regards to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent had been elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly during the election conducted in the year 2021 and that he had also been appointed as a Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development of Tamil Nadu in the year 2022. On his appointment, the 1st respondent had made a declaration in public that “Maamannan” will be his last film which would only mean that he would not act any further film. He would submit that the film “Angel” is in finishing stage and if the 1st respondent did not complete the film.

Issue:

Can the Court entertain an injunction against the third party from implementing their agreement entered upon with the same person with whom the applicant had entered into an agreement?

Legal Analysis:

When the case came up before Justice K Kumaresh Babu, the judge observed that the agreement between Udayanidhi and Ramasaravan was completely different from the one entered into between Udayanidhi and the producers of Maamannan movie ie, Red Giant Movies, and hence an injunction could not be granted to implement merely because on the parties to both the agreements was same person. The court added that it could not entertain an injunction against third parties from implementing their agreements.

Ramasaravanan, in his plea had submitted that he had entered into an agreement with third parties for making the film titled “Angel” and Udayanidhi was to be featured as the lead hero. He added that an oral agreement was entered into between the parties and an amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000 was to be paid as remuneration to Udayanidhi. He further submitted that a sum of thirty lakhs had already been paid as part payment.

Ramasaravan further submitted that due to covid, the shooting of the movie was stalled and presently 80% of the movie has been completed and only dubbing and shooting of some filler scenes were left. He added that while so, Udayanishi was elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly in 2021 and has been appointed as Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development of Tamil Nadu. He submitted that after his new appointment, Udayanidhi announced that he would not act in any movies. He submitted that if the same is to be true, he would suffer a huge loss amounting to twenty five crore rupees and would also affect others involved in the film.

On the other hand, Udayanidhi submitted that he had been paid only five lakh rupees as against the thirty lacks claimed by the producer. He added that though he has said that he would not act in any movies, it would not include dubbing. He added that what the producer was now seeking was a part performance of an oral agreement for which he is attempting to stall an independent arrangement. He added that even otherwise, the producer had sought for an alternate relief of compensation and thus no mandatory injunction was necessary.

The court found favour in these arguments. The court noted that the producer had to first approach the actor for completing the movie and even if the actor refuses, the producer was not without a remedy as he himself had sought for an alternative prayer. The court thus said that it was not inclined to grant injunction and thus dismissed the petitions.

Judgement:

The prayer in the present application is also the prayer in the main Suit, but however with an alternative relief of Rs.25,00,00,000/- as compensation. The applicant himself has admitted in the project of the film titled “Angel”, expenditure is Rs.13,00,00,000/- and expects a sum of
Rs.12,00,00,000/- as project which would entitle him for a compensation ofRs.25,00,00,000/- from the first respondent. It is for the applicant to approach the first respondent to seek his consent for completing the film. If he refuses to complete his part of performance, it does not mean that the applicant is without any relief for the simple reason that he himself had sought for an alternative prayer of compensation of Rs.25,00,00,000/- for the loss that is
incurred by the plaintiff. In view of the non-performance and refusal for completing the shooting schedule and dubbing of the film titled as “Angel” so as to enable the plaintiff to release the said film. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant the direction sought by the applicant

Conclusion:

The Court interpreted the law in the right way and has ordered the refusal to stall the relese of Udayanidhi starrer movie “Maamannan”. The court passed orders on a plea filed by Producer Ramasaravanan seeking injunction against the release of the movie and further to direct Udayanidhi Stalin to complete the shooting in a previously agreed upon film titled “Angel”in view of the non-performance and refusal for completing the shooting schedule and dubbing of the film titled as “Angel” so as to enable the plaintiff to release the said film.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Employer should pay ESI Contribution to Employees- Madras High Court.

blog, Blog , , , ,

Case Title:  Hindustan Unilever Ltd.     … Appellant
                                  Versus

The Deputy Director.  Sub Regional Employees’ State Insurance Corporation                                        … Respondent

Date of Decision:  Reserved On 27.04.2023
                              Pronounced On 26.06.2023

Coram: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
                                          AND
             THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI 

Citation:  W.A. No.2836 of 2022 and C.M.P. No. 23210 of 2022

Introduction:

This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.08.2022 of the learned Single Judge, in and by which, the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant herenin, questioning the order issued by the respondent herein, under Section 45-A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short the ‘ESI Act, 1948) was dismissed. On 06.12.2010, the Social Security Officer of the Respondent had visited the unit of the Appellant in respect of coverage of ESI Scheme and by communication dated 10.02.2011, it was informed that the Appellant Factory was liable to be covered with effect from 01.01.2010. After producing the legal history of tea and coffee factories of Brooke Bond India Limited and Lipton India Limited, an personal hearing was afforded on 30.08.2013, in which, it was resolved to ask the Social Security Officer to revisit the factory to ascertain whether the activity being carried on in the Factory falls within the definition of seasonal factory in terms of Section 2(19A) of the ESI Act, 1948. Section 2(19A) of the ESI Act, 1948.

Facts:

The Appellant Factory, having one of the factories at Coimbatore, is into the business of manufacturing pure coffee, coffee and chicory mixture in the name and style of M/s.Brooke Bond India Limited and the Appellant Factory does not deal with the process of chicory as a separate item. The Appellant Factory had registered itself as a Principal Employer and is holding a Certificate of Registration and there were four Contractors supplying manpower to the Appellant Factory at Hosur, who are also holding a valid license under the said Act. Since the business of the Contractors will not come within the definition of seasonal factory, the provisions of the ESI Act will apply to their employees. In 2010, the Respondent informed that the Contractors, calling upon them to cover their Establishments under the ESI Act, by treating them to be independent establishments and the Respondent also allotted a Code number to the establishments of the Contractors, thereby they have been remitting ESI
contributions in respect of their employees from April, 2010.

Issues:

  • Whether the activity being carried on in the Appellant Factory falls within the definition of seasonal factory in terms of Section 2(19A) of the ESI Act, 1948.
  • Whether the respondents’ factories in view of the amendment to the definition of ‘seasonal factory’ have lost the benefit of exclusion from the Act.

Legal Analysis:

The core issue to be decided in this case is whether the Appellant Factory can be construed as a seasonal factory or not? The Social Security Officer, after inspection, submitted a report, recommending that the Appellant Factory is liable to be covered under the ESI Act, 1948 and also for allotment of Code Number. Let us first analyze what are all the criteria for bringing a Factory under the purview of Seasonal Factory. According to the Respondent, the word ‘seasonal’ denotes that the activities of a Factory should take place in a particular period of time and the process of manufacturing coffee beans from the coffee berries is seasonal in nature. The reason stated by the respondent for coverage of the Appellant Factory under
the ESI Act, 1948, was that they procure coffee beans from 22 different vendors in Southern States, including Tamil Nadu and such procured beans are processed into coffee power in the factory situated at Hosur. Therefore, it cannot be said that they undertake works only during a particular period and without production of relevant materials to substantiate their stand, they
cannot be simply branded as a seasonal factory.

The order of the learned Single Judge in extending the coverage to the Appellant Factory on the ground that the contract employees are covered, may not be correct, as it is the duty of the Principal Employer, namely, Appellant Factory to pay the amount to the Respondent and there aftercollect the amount from the Contractors.

Judgements:

In the case on hand, the Appellant Factory, having advanced arguments on merits before the learned Single Judge and obtained an adverse order, cannot now raise a plea of alternative remedy. Moreover, a careful reading of the judgment of the Apex Court (supra), alternative remedy is not a bar to entertain a Writ Petition and therefore, the decision quoted by the Appellant Factory is against them. It is needless to mention that the objective of the ESI Act, 1948, which is otherwise called as a beneficial legislation, is to offer financial benefits to enrolled workers during sickness, pregnancy and any disability (permanent or temporary) due to employment injury. It is a duty cast upon the employer to pay ESI Contributions of the employer and employees, in view of the fact that
medical expenses are sky-rocketing and in the event of any untoward
incident, the employee or his family members should not be abjured in
streets.

For the foregoing discussions and observations, we are of the view that there is no need for interference in the order of the learned Single Judge and the Appellant Factory cannot be treated as a seasonal establishment, consequent to their engagement in other process of blending or packing or repacking of coffee for more than seven months in a year in contravention to Section 2(19A) of the ESI Act, 1948.

Conclusion:

The order of the learned Single Judge in extending the coverage to the Appellant Factory on the ground that the contract employees are covered, may not be correct, as it is the duty of the Principal Employer, namely, Appellant Factory to pay the amount to the Respondent and thereafter collect the amount from the Contractors and the full bench did not interfere in the single bench judgement and says the petitioner to pay the ESI Contribution to Empolyees.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

1 2 3 4 5 6