1 2025:CGHC:7215 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 67 of 2015 1 - Employees State Insurance Corporation Through Its Regional Director, 18, South Avenue Chobey Colony, Raipur, Now Situated In 107 Ramnagar Kota Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - M/s Cosmos Casting India Ltd. S/o Aged About 45 Years 299/1 Tendua Road, Jarvay Hirapur Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dharampal Kalash S/o Shri Sukhdev Kalash 299/1 Tendua Road Jarvay Hirapur Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - M/s Manglam Alloy And Ispat Private Ltd. 299/1, Tendua Road, Jarvay, Hi- rapur , Raipur. ... Respondents For appellants : Mr. Pranav Saxena, Adv. For Respondents : None. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 05/02/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (henceforth, ‘ESI Act’) challenging the order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the learned Employee’s Insurance-cum-Labour Court No.1 Raipur in Civil Case No.70/ESI Act/2009, whereby notice dated 18.03.2009 (Ex.P/6) issued by the appellant to respondent No.1 has been quashed. Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.02.10 17:23:48 +0530 2 2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that, respondent No.1 is a company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of steel and its factory is situated at Tendua Road, Jarvay, Heerapur, Raipur (C.G.). Provisions of the ESI Act are applicable to respondent No.1, therefore, appellant had issued notice dated 18.03.2009 (Ex.P/6) to respondent No.1 for determination of contribution payable by respondent No.1, but the same was challenged by it by filing an application under Section 75 read with Section 77 of the ESI Act, which has been allowed by the ESI-cum-Labour Court vide impugned order and it quashed the impugned notice dated 18.03.2009 (Ex.P/6). Hence, this appeal. 3. This appeal has been admitted on 05.07.2022 on following substantial question of law:- “Whether, the Employees State Insurance Court/the Labour Court was justified in entertaining the challenge to the demand notice without the principal employer complied with the provisions contained under Section 75 (2) (B) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948?” 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned ESI- cum-Labour Court has quashed the notice dated 18.03.2009 (Ex.P/6) only on the ground that the document supporting to the aforesaid notice has not been filed. Prior to issuance of aforesaid notice, vigilance team has inspected the premises of the respondent No.1 and it was found that, though respondents were filing their own return in respect of some employees, but on inspection by the vigilance team, it was found that much more employees were working 3 in the respondents firm then mentioned in the return. He further submits that the order passed by the court is bad in law, as ESI Court-cum-Labour Court has acted in the manner of civil court, whereas in the cases under the ESI Act, the provisions of Civil Procedure Code or the Evidence Act are not strictly applicable, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record including the record of the Court below. 6. It is not in dispute that notice dated 18.03.2009 (Ex.P/6) was issued by the appellant to respondent No.1 for payment of omitted contribution. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that, the aforesaid notice was issued on the basis of inspection carried out by the vigilance team and report submitted by it, but neither in notice dated 18.03.2009 (Ex.P/6) such fact is mentioned that inspection was carried out by vigilance team nor any such report has been filed by the appellant before the ESI-cum-Labour Court. Sub section 2 of Section 45 A of the ESI Act provides that an order made by Corporation under sub section (1) shall be sufficient proof of the claim of the Corporation under Section 75 or for recovery of the amount determined by such order as an arrears of land revenue. It is a case of appellant itself that in inspection done by vigilance team, it was found that irregularities with regard to filing return about actual number of employees was being committed by respondent No.1 and report in this regard was also prepared, but no such document in respect of notice dated 18.03.2009 (Ex.P/6) has been filed by the appellant before the concerned ESI Act-cum- Labour Court. It has also not been shown by the appellant that provisions of Section 44 of the ESI Act have not been complied with by the respondents. 4 7. Having considered the aforesaid facts, notice dated 18.03.2009 (Ex.P/6) issued by the appellant to respondent No.1 is found to be not supported by any document or report, therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in quashing the aforesaid notice by the ESI-cum-Labour Court. 8. So far as non-compliance of sub-section (2) (b) of Section 75 of ESI Act is concerned, when specific question was posed to the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether such issue was raised before the ESI Court, then he submitted that he has no knowledge about the same. This appeal is pending since 2015, therefore, having considered the proviso appended to sub Section (2) (b) of Section 75 of ESI Act in respect of waiver to depositing 50%, I do not feel inclined to permit to raise this issue at this stage i.e. after such a long period. As such, the substantial question of law framed in this case is answered against the appellant. 9. In view of above discussion, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the ESI-cum-Labour Court. Hence, the same is affirmed. 10. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak