IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7307 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.ROHIT COTS, PLOT NO.22B/C, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT,PERINGANDOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICER AT'PANCHDEEP BHAVAN',NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, PB NO.2,TRICHUR 680 020. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE,EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,'PANCHDEEP BHAVAN',NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, PB NO.2,TRICHUR 680 020. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.7307 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is engaged in the production of various types of Polyester as well as cotton yarn. According to him, his products are got manufactured through different persons who are given sub contracts, for such manufacture. The manufacturing process is done by such sub contractors, with their own employees. According to the petitioner, all such persons who had executed his work on the basis of sub contracts under him, are persons who have registered their employees under the Employees State Insurance(ESI) Act. Therefore, their employees are all persons who are covered by the provisions of the Act. However, in spite of the above factual position, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the respondents under the ESI Act. An amount of Rs.21,53,339/- has been demanded as contribution from the petitioner for the period, 1999 - 2004. According to the petitioner, he is not entitled to pay the amount demanded since the employees with respect to whom the contributions are claimed, are Wpc 7307/2010 2 already covered by the provisions of the ESI Act. According to the petitioner, he is ready to produce the books of accounts, as well as the bills and vouchers for the relevant period, in proof of the above contention. He had submitted a request to the respondents to permit him to produce the said documents in support of his contentions. The request of the petitioner was considered and as per Ext.P3, the second respondent has expressed his willingness to reconsider the assessment, on condition that 50% of the amount assessed under Section 45A was remitted by the petitioner. It is further stipulated that the petitioner should produce his books of accounts and other connected records for re-verification within one month. 2. According to the petitioner, the condition to remit 50% of the assessed amounts is onerous and unjust. A re-verification of the relevant records would absolve the petitioner of all liability to pay any amount by way of ESI contribution. The burden of depositing 50% of the amount would also cripple his establishment. In view of the above, he has filed this writ petition seeking a modification of the condition regarding deposit of 50% of the amount. Wpc 7307/2010 3 3. The learned standing counsel for the respondents, Adv.P.Sankarankutty Nair stoutly opposes the request of the petitioner. According to him, Ext.P3 contains only a concession which has been extended to the petitioner by way of indulgence. Therefore, the condition imposed was only reasonable and there were no grounds to interfere with the same. 4. It is to be noted that if as contended by the petitioner, the employees of the sub contractors are already covered by the provisions of the ESI Act, no contributions as claimed would be due or payable by the petitioner. The request of the petitioner has found favour with the second respondent Noushad to a certain extent. Otherwise, he would not have expressed his willingness to reconsider the matter as offered in Ext.P3. In view of the fact that the second respondent has expressed his willingness to reconsider the matter, the insistence on an onerous condition like deposit of 50% of the amount assessed, as a condition for such reconsideration is uncalled for. But, the petitioner certainly has to make some deposits to prove his bonafides. 5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of Wpc 7307/2010 4 modifying the first condition in Ext P3 to the limited extent of confirming the deposit contemplated in the said clause to an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which the petitioner shall pay within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the said amount, the second respondent shall proceed to reconsider the assessment that is made on the petitioner in accordance with the terms of Ext.P3. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk