SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *W.P. 13290/2021* Rajaguru Spinning Mills (P) Limited Vs. Recovery Officer Dated: 29.06.2021 *Hon’ble Justice S. Vaidhyanathan* disposed of the Writ Petition with

by ·

[7/22, 07:21] Sekarreporter: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*

*W.P. 13290/2021*
Rajaguru Spinning Mills (P) Limited Vs. Recovery Officer
Dated: 29.06.2021

*Hon’ble Justice S. Vaidhyanathan* disposed of the Writ Petition with directions to afford opportunity for early adjudication in the matter relating to *“ESI – Whether Coercive Action may be taken while within the Time Limit to approach the ESI Court”* and further held and observed the following:

i) The Hon’ble Court rejected the contention of the Petitioner that, when the Petitioner has got time to approach the ESI Court, the attachment of Petitioner’s bank account till Appeal under Sec. 75 is filed is perverse in law. The reason being, if the same is allowed, the ESI Corporation shall have to watch whether any appeal under Section 75 has been filed and whether three years limitation has concluded.

ii) It was further observed that it is very difficult for the ESI Corporation to keep a watch and ascertain whether any appeal has been preferred within 3 years or not. The ESI Corporation is bound to take coercive action, which would make the employer file an appeal under Section 75 of the ESI Act. Legislatures must think of reducing the time limit prescribed under the ESI Act to prefer an appeal and reduce the period from three years to one year.

iii) It was further observed that the Court has neither the power to legislate nor to make any amendment to the Act. Regarding the same, an extract is recorded from the Supreme Court caselaw, “Krishna District Co-Operative Marketing Society Limited Vs. N.V. Purnachandra Rao” [(1987) 4 SCC 99], wherein the Supreme Court had suggested an All-India Labour Appellate Tribunal and had also recorded that the 40+ year old Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 required a comprehensive amendment.

iv) The Hon’ble Court concluded the Judgement stating that this matter was taken up on special circumstances owing to the pandemic situation and therefore the same may not be used as a precedent for other employers to approach this Court on similar grounds since the remedy is before the ESI Court under Section 75 of the ESI Act and Section 82 if any adverse orders are passed.
[7/22, 07:21] Sekarreporter: 💐

You may also like...