9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order hence calls for no interference. However, it is made clear that the total amount payable by the 20th petitioner towards ESI contribution for the relevant period is ₹ 9,46,758/- as evident from the order made in IA.No.162 of 1999 dated 28.03.2000 and the sum of ₹ 4,96,268.15 has already been paid and the balance sum is only payable by the petitioners. The substantial questions of law are accordingly answered against the petitioners. - CMA.No.2469 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 3-9-2015 - Ms. K.B.K.Vasuki, J. JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Petitioner in ESIOP.No.42 of 2000 against the order of the Labour Court, Salem rejecting the ESIOP filed by the petitioners. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Labour Court. 3. The 20th petitioner M/s.Seshasayee paper and Board Limited who is the principal employer are manufacturing papers and board at Pallipalayam. There were during relevant point of time 1700 permanent workers covered under the Employees State Insurance Act subject to the salary unit. The principal employer used to engage independent contractors (immediate employer) for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order of the Deputy Director and for declaring that the principal employer is liable to pay total sum of ₹ 5,63,720.14. 5. The ESIOP was filed along with IA.No.162 of 1999 seeking waiver of deposit of 50% of the total amount demanded. The IA was after due contest allowed as prayed for. While allowing the IA for waiver of deposit of 50% of the total amount demanded, the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court has accepted the contention of the 20th petitioner herein, that the total amount demanded is ₹ 9,46,758/- and 50% of the same to the tune of ₹ 4,96,268.15 was already deposited and the deposit of remaining 50% is waived. Thereafter ESIOP was disposed of after due contest. The relief sought for in the ESIOP was subsequently amended for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.04.1999 demanding ₹ 9,46,758/- and for refund of the amount of contribution already paid in excess of 25% of the total bill amount and ordered for the refund of contribution paid in respect of Colony yard and Railway Yard. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court after due contest found that the circular dated 26.06.1982 issued by the respondent was not applicable to the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the decision arrived at on the basis of the memorandum in the judgments above referred to are applicable to the facts to the present case. 10. In order to appreciate this aspect, it is but necessary to refer to the memorandum. The reading of the same would reveal that the memorandum is more in the nature of clarification of the office memo dated 16.11.1981, as per which, where the employer is unable to give the details separately for payment made towards labour charges, cost of material, share of profit etc, the Regional Director may assume 25% of such bills towards labour charges and recover contribution thereon. The clarification by way of memorandum dated 26.02.1982 was issued on receipt of references from some of the Regional Directors. While the earlier office memo dated 16.11.1981 was made applicable only in cases of payment relating to repair/maintenance etc., of the factory/establishment building, the memorandum dated 26.06.1982 would clarify that the bill includes apart from labour charges, cost of material, profit etc of the contractor or the person doing the job and this adoption of 25% of the total amount is applicable where the principal employer is not in a posit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;s Section officer based on their personal knowledge. It is again stated in para 25 of the affidavit that the bills submitted by the contractors clearly specified the labour, transport charges and profit and the principal employer has submitted the records, documents and statements showing the charges paid to the contractors. 15. One of the grounds raised in the petition is questioning the conduct of the respondent in not accepting the competency of the Section Officer of the principal employer to confirm the quantum of labour involved in the work and certify the quantum of labour charges involved in the bill of contractors. The petitioners also in their petition have made a reference to the analysis of the expenses given on the reverse side of the bill produced by the contractors consisting of split up details such as transport, labour etc. and specific ground raised therein in this regard is that the respondent has not given any reason for not accepting the split up details given on the reverse side of the bills. It is also stated that the Deputy Regional Director erred in assuming that the principal employer had arrived at the contribution on the probability and not on the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
