FAO No.251 of 2002 Page 1 of 3 UNREPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No.251/2002 Date of Decision: April 27, 2010 M/S.DCM SHRIRAM CONSOLIDATED LTD. ..... Appellant through Mr. Harvinder Singh, Advocate with Ms. Sapna Mali & Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocates versus EMPLOYEES‟ INSURANCE COURT & ANR ..... Respondents through Mr. K.P.Mavi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the „Digest‟? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that this case is covered by a judgment of this Court dated May 12, 2008 passed in the case of “M/s DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Versus Employees Insurance Court Delhi & others”. By virtue of the said judgment, the case was remanded back to the Employees‟ Insurance Court for fresh determination after supplying copy of the inspection report to the appellant therein, on the basis of which the demand was raised by the ESIC against the employer towards its contribution. FAO No.251 of 2002 Page 2 of 3 In so far as the present appeal is concerned, demand under Section 45 of the Employees‟ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ESI Act) was raised against the appellant amounting to Rs.65,649.52P for the period from December 16, 1983 to February 28, 1985 in addition to interest up to May 31, 1988 amounting to Rs.14,892.55P. The demand so raised was challenged by the appellant under Section 75 of the ESI Act before the Employees‟ Insurance Court, but the learned Judge vide order dated February 13, 2002 upheld the order passed on June 21, 1988 and accordingly dismissed the application of the appellant. The main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the demand raised vide order dated June 21, 1988 was made against the appellant without furnishing a copy of the inspection report which formed the basis of the demand. Reference in this regard has been made to the evidence of Shri R.K.Mehta, Director, Planning & Development, ESIC who was examined by the respondents and who had passed the order under Section 45-A of the ESI Act. He stated that, “I during the proceedings u/s 45-A of the ESI Act conducted by me, did not supply a copy of the inspection report to the employer. I did not pass any order on the request of the employer for supply of a copy of the inspection report.” The learned counsel for the respondents though has opposed the appeal but has not been able to counter the evidence of Shri R.K.Mehta who was their own witness. In view of what has been noticed above, I deem it proper to remand the case to the competent authority as was done in the FAO No.251 of 2002 Page 3 of 3 aforementioned case of M/s DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. (supra). The communication dated June 21, 1988 and the impugned order dated February 13, 2002 are quashed. The proceedings before the competent authority under the ESI Act are revived with a direction to the authority to supply copy of the inspection report to the appellant who then would grant an opportunity to the appellant to respond to the same. The competent authority shall hold the proceedings as per law. It is made clear that both the parties shall be at liberty to raise all issues of fact and law before the competent authority. The trial Court record be returned back. The Bank guarantee submitted by the appellant pursuant to the order of this Court stands discharged. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of. REKHA SHARMA, J. APRIL 27, 2010 ka