Interim Order 16

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: ESIC 2/23
MS VAISHNO SECURITY AND PLACEMENT SERVICES
REGD Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
CORPORATION
04.07.2024
Present : None.
1. Vide this order, I shall decide an application seeking
interim relief under Section 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with
Section Section 75 (2B) of the ESI Act, 1948.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent i.e.
ESIC has raised an illegal demand of Rs. 8 lakhs from the
pension account of the petitioner, whereas the ownership o the
firm has already been handed over to the wife of the petitioner,an
intimation qua this has been given to the petitioner on
25.09.2009.
3.
Per contra, it has been argued by the respondent that
the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and
despite time and opportunity has failed to comply with the
provisions of the Act. It has further been submitted that the
petitioner himself supplied the number of the pension account
and, therefore, he himself is liable for the said recovery.
4. Having heard the submissions and having perused
the record, I am inclined to grant benefit under Section 75(2B) of
the ESI Act.
5. On 03.05.2024, Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1
made a statement before the Court that the respondent No.1 has
ESIC 2/23 MS VAISHNO SECURITY AND PLACEMENT SERVICES REGD Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE
INSURANCE CORPORATION Page 1 of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
received 50% of the total amount till the date of filing of the
written statement as mentioned in para 1 of the reply to the
petition. He further stated that he has no objection if the
remaining amount is stayed subject to maintaining sufficient
amount in the account by the petitioner.
6. It is admitted case on both the sides that so far,
against a demand of Rs.8 lakh, more than Rs.4 lakh has been
recovered. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner firm has
not been closed and that merely the proprietorship has changed
i.e. from the petitioner to his wife; be that as it may be, since the
petitioner firm has a separately legal entity, under the
proprietorship of Sulochna Patra w.e.f. 01.09.2009, any further
recovery from the personal account of the petitioner is not
warranted by the interest of justice. Whether or not the demand
raised by the respondent i.e. demand of Rs.8 lakhs approximately
is as per law or otherwise is a matter of trial. There is no law
which allows recovery from an ex-proprietor only because the
new proprietor is the wife of the petitioner. Considering the fact
that more than 50% of the demand raised by the respondent has
already been recovered from the petitioner, I deem appropriate to
grant benefit of Section 75 (2B) of ESI Act to the petitioner and
deem appropriate to direct the respondent to not affect any
further recovery from the pension account of the petitioner. The
same direction shall also stand applicable on respondent No.2 as
well i.e. Indian Bank.
7. For the purpose of removal of all doubts, it is
ESIC 2/23 MS VAISHNO SECURITY AND PLACEMENT SERVICES REGD Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE
INSURANCE CORPORATION Page 2 of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
clarified herein that the petitioner Vaishno Security and
Placement Services, being covered under ESI Act and being a
actively running entity, is liable under ESI Act to pay its dues as
per rules. The said proprietorship firm shall provide an alternate
account number from which the said liabilities/recoveries are to
be effected in future.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the application at hand
stands disposed off as allowed.
9. Copy of this order be given dasti to both the sides.
10. Be put up for further proceedings on 25.10.2024.
(Harjeet Singh Jaspal)
SCJ-cum-RC: Central District:
04.07.2024
ESIC 2/23 MS VAISHNO SECURITY AND PLACEMENT SERVICES REGD Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE
INSURANCE CORPORATION Page 3 of 3
-- 3 of 3 --