1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:28.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN CRP(PD)(MD)No.876 of 2011 Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, Through its Chief Engineer, Harbour Estate, Tuticorin. :Petitioner/Petitioner/Petitioner -Vs- Employees State Insurance Corporation, Through its Joint Director, Tirunelveli. :Respondent/Respondent/Respondent PRAYER:Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the learned Labour Judge, Tirunelveli to number the I.A.No.of 2011 dated 17.03.2011 on the file of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli. For Petitioner :Mr.M.Patturajan For Respondent :Mr.K.C.Ramalingam ORDER The petitioner challenges the return of restoration petition filed by the petitioner before the E.S.I Court. 2.Heard the counsel for the parties. The petitioner filed E.S.I.O.P challenging the order passed under Section 45A of the Act. In the said O.P, the petitioner took out an application for waiver of deposit of contribution and the Court directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the contribution. The said order was challenged before this Court in C.R.P.(MD)No.468 of 2010. This Court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1.75 Crores on or before 31.08.2010 and subsequently the time was extended up to 28.02.2011. 3.On 28.02.2011, the petitioner counsel filed a memo before the E.S.I Court stating that M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 in the above C.R.P was filed to modify the order and the matter was adjourned to 03.03.2011. On 03.03.2011, the main O.P was dismissed as the conditional order was not complied with. Meanwhile, the petitioner on 08.03.2011, got modification of the order from this Court to that effect to deposit a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) on or before 30.04.2011 and the balance of Rs.1,25,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore and Twenty Five Lakhs only) to be paid in five equal instalments from May 2011 onwards and the entire amount has to be paid on or before 31.09.2011. In those circumstances, the petitioner filed I.A. to restore the O.P which was dismissed for non-compliance on 03.03.2011. The said petition was returned as not maintainable. The said return is challenged before this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.It is seen from the records, that the E.S.I Court itself recorded on 28.02.2011, that a memo was filed stating that M.P (MD)No.1 of 2011 in C.R.P(MD)No.468 of 2011 would come up before this Court in the First week of March. In those circumstances, the E.S.I Court should have waited for outcome of the result in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011. However, the E.S.I Court dismissed the main O.P for non-compliance. That apart, this Court by order dated 08.03.2011, modified the order passed earlier and granted time to the petitioner till 31.09.2011, to comply with earlier order. Therefore, the trial Court return of I.A is set aside and the I.A filed by the petitioner is to be ordered and there cannot be any objection by the respondent as admittedly the petitioner has been complying with the order passed by this Court on 08.03.2011. 5.The learned Counsel for the respondent admits that Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) has already been paid and the monthly instalments are also being paid. Therefore, there may not be any prejudice caused to the respondent. After all, the order passed by the E.S.I Court is being complied with, of course, with the modification made by this Court. In view of that, the set aside petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the main un-numbered E.S.I.O.P stands restored. 6.This comprehensive order is passed taking into consideration the intention of the petitioner to comply with the order passed by this Court which is admitted by the respondent and also to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. This order has been passed invoking under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to do substantial justice suo motu. Suo motu power of this Court to pass order under Article 227 has been recognised by the Honourable Apex Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another -Vs- Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329. This order will not prejudice the respondent and in fact it will give benefits to the respondents as the amount periodically paid by the petitioner. The E.S.I Court is directed to dispose of the O.P as per law at the earliest. 7.With the above direction, the Civil Revision petition is allowed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The Presiding officer, The Labour Court, Tirunelveli. +1CC to Mr.H.Patturajan, Advocate. SR.No.20561. +1CC to Mr.K.C.Ramalingam, Advocate. SR.No. Copy To:The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. RP/08.07.2011/2P/5C. C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.876 of 2011 . https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/