FAO No.901 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 901 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.05.2011 Dhir Global Industria Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Deputy Director (Revenue) Employees State Insurance Corporation and another .....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment of the learned Employees State Insurance Court, Gurgaon whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 77 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, “the Act”) challenging the order dated 12.02.2004 levying damages of ` 5,03,928/-, was dismissed. Neither a copy of the order vide which the damages were imposed nor the notice issued for levying the damages have been placed on record along with the appeal, counsel for the appellant was asked to show the same in court. A perusal of the notice dated 23.09.2003 issued to the appellant to show cause as to why damages should not be levied shows that the delay in deposit of the contribution started in October, 1999, which continued till May 2002. Delay in deposit of contribution ranges from 21 to 842 days. The rates at which the damages have been levied is in terms Regulation 31 of Employees State Insurance (General) Regulation 1950. FAO No.901 of 2011 2 The only plea sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that due to financial difficulties, the amount could not be paid in time otherwise prior thereto the appellant never defaulted in payment of contribution. No material was produced by the appellant to substantiate the plea raised either before the court below or this court, as nothing was referred to at the time of hearing. It is a fact that the appellant-company was carrying on its business even during the period of default in payment of contribution. Considering the aforesaid facts where the appellant had not been able to substantiate the plea sought to be raised, I do not find any illegality has been committed by the Employees State Insurance Court while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Consequently the application for condonation of delay in re-filing is also dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 16.05.2011 sharmila