Letter of ESIC officer can’t be treated as notification: Court
Chandigarh, April 29
Observing that a letter issued by the Additional Commissioner, Employee State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), cannot be treated as a gazette notification issued by the appropriate government as envisaged under Section 1(5) of the ESI Act, Dr Aman Inder Singh, Chief Judicial Magistrate, has acquitted a developer in a case filed by the ESIC.
The ESIC had filed the complaint against M/s Sushma Buildtech through its Managing Director under Section 85(g) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. It complained that the officers of the ESIC conducted checking at its branch office (construction site) in Bishanpura village, Zirakpur tehsil, Mohali district, on November 30, 2015. It was found that many employees were not registered under the ESI scheme.
As per the Act, all employees within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Act working in a factory or establishment to which the Act applied shall be insured in the manner as prescribed in the regulations, i.e. within 10 days of their appointment. On the basis of documents, the court summoned the accused to face a trial for the commission of offence under Section 85(g) of the Act vide order dated March 25, 2016.
Hitender Kansal, advocate for the accused, argued that the developer was falsely implicated in the case. He said the Act had no applicability to the workers of the construction site without notification. The counsel argued that the extension of the Act to any establishment other than a factory can only be effected by the appropriate government by notification in the official gazette.
After hearing the arguments, the court dismissed the complaint. Admittedly, there is no notification issued by the appropriate government under Section 1(5) of the Act. “By no stretch of imagination can this letter be treated as gazette notification by the appropriate government as envisaged under Section 1(5) of the Act. There is, thus, no occasion for the applicability of the Act to the accused establishment. The accused, therefore, stands acquitted,” says the court the order.
