IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 729 of 2007(J) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24241/2006 Dated 27/09/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITONERS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-20. 2. THE ASST.DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, N.S.ROUND, THRISSUR-20. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ESI CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN N.S.ROUND, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- SUJITH T, SWASTHIK, AISWARYA AVENUE, PUTHU, PALAKKAD 678 001. ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== R.P.No. 729/2007 in W.P.(C).No. 24241/2006 ================== Dated this the 18th day of March, 2011 O R D E R The Employees' State Insurance Corporation has filed this review petition for review of my judgment dated 27.9.2006, which reads thus: “The petitioner defaulted payments of contributions under the Employees' State Insurance scheme. Prosecutions proceedings were initiated for non-payment. In the mean time, the Corporation evolved an amnesty scheme under which defaulters would be let off from prosecution on certain conditions. The petitioner submits that by Ext.P6, the petitioner was offered benefit of the amnesty scheme on condition that the petitioner pays the contributions, interest and damages thereon for the period from 1.2.02 to 31.3.04. According to the petitioner, as evidenced by Ext.P7, he had paid the entire amount due which is Rs. 73,152/-. The petitioner points out that that is the amount which was stated to be due from the petitioner in the complaint initiating prosecution proceedings. The petitioner, therefore, submits that in view of the fact that he has complied with the conditions in Ext.P6, the Corporation may be directed to withdraw the proceedings before the Magistrate court. 2. The learned standing counsel for the Corporation on instructions submits that they have no objection in withdrawing the prosecution proceedings, if the petitioner has paid the amounts as claimed by him. The above submission is recorded and the respondents are directed to take appropriate steps to withdraw the criminal complaint pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissur, after ascertaining whether the payment as evidenced by Ext.P7 has been received.” 2. The contention raised in the review petition is that while making submission by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, the intention was that if the petitioner in the writ petition pays the amounts due without reference to the amnesty scheme then in force, they would withdraw the prosecution proceedings. But the judgment was wrongly interpreted to mean that the petitioner is liable to pay the amounts only as per the amnesty scheme and, therefore, r.p.729/07 2 according to the Corporation, the judgment should be reviewed directing the petitioner in the writ petition to pay the total contribution amount with interest and damages as a condition for withdrawing the prosecutions proceedings. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition submits that the petitioner is prepared to pay the amount with interest without reference to the amnesty scheme, but when the benefit of the amnesty scheme is denied to him, damages should be waived. I am of opinion that that is a reasonable suggestion. Accordingly, I make it clear that for withdrawing the prosecution proceedings against the petitioner in the writ petition, he has to pay the amount of contribution with interest upto 22.8.2006 as a condition for withdrawing the prosecution proceedings, but the Corporation shall not insist on payment of damages for delayed payment. The judgment in the writ petition would stand modified accordingly. The review petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge