THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.440 of 1999 JUDGMENT: The appellant herein filed E.I.Case No.4 of 1995 before the Employees’ Insurance Court, Hyderabad, under Section 75(2) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’), against the respondent. It prayed for recovery of contribution under the Act, for the period from 01.07.1982 to 31.03.1993 with interest from April, 1982 to 31.11.1983 and damages from April, 1982 to October, 1985. In all, the claim was for Rs.7,42,535/-. It was pleaded that the respondent was covered by the provisions of the Act, and in spite of repeated demands, he did not pay the contribution. The amount included not only the contribution, but also the damages. The respondent filed counter-affidavit. It did not dispute the coverage under the Act. However, it was pleaded that the factory had to be closed for some time and functioned without manufacturing process, on account of the disputes between themselves and their lessor. Through its order, dated 11.10.1996, the trial Court partly allowed, the case, and awarded a sum of Rs.6,64,851/-, with costs of Rs.1,000/- and interest at the rate of 6%, per annum, from the date of petition, till the date of realization. The appellant feels aggrieved by the denial of relief as regards balance of the amount claimed by it, damages and interest at 12%, per annum. Smt. Pushpender Kaur, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there is no dispute as to the coverage of the respondents by the provisions of the Act and non-payment of contribution and still the important components such as the damages and interest at 12%, per annum, were denied. This is one of the rare cases where the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation has approached the trial Court claiming the relief. The Corporation is conferred with the power not only to assess an organization, levy damages and interest, but also to recover the same by invoking the powers conferred upon it under the Act and the rules made thereunder. Normally, it is the industrial establishment that approaches the E.S.I. Court, feeling aggrieved by the steps taken by the Corporation. Be that as it may, the Corporation claimed the amount for certain period, the corresponding damages and interest. On an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the amount payable by the respondent is only Rs.6,64,851/-. As regards damages, a specific issue was framed. While answering it, the trial Court found that the filing of the case was not preceded by any notices. The appellant made an effort to impress the trial Court that such notices were filed in a criminal case. Even if that is true, the record in criminal case cannot be treated as part of the case filed under Section 75(2) of the Act. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the provision as it stood at that relevant point of time, provided for 6%, per annum, and the same was awarded. Viewed from any angle, the order under revision does not warrant any interference. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:05.08.2010 GJ