ELGI EQUIPMENTS LIMITED INDIA HOME TIRUCHI ROAD COIMBATORE 18 Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR REGIONAL OFFICE TAMIL NADU EMPLOYEES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner company is covered by the provisions of the Employees. State Insurance Act, 1948. It is pleaded that it has been regularly remitting the contributions payable under the Act, both employer.s as well as the employees. contributions. While so, in the months of September, 1975, November, 1975, January, 1976, March, 1976, May, 1976, September, 1976 and September, 1977, since stamps were not available in the State Bank of India, even though challans had been prepared and submitted on due dates, the Bank itself had altered the dates in the challans to correspond with the dates when the stamps were actually available, and hence the delay occasioned was beyond its control. When a demand was made by the respondent, the petitioner made representations on 31st August, 1978, also thereafter brought to its notice about the non-availability of stamps, which alone precluded it from complying with the provisions of the Act. In spite of the representations made, the impugned order having been passed with a cryptic finding and with no reason whatsoever, this writ petition came to be filed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, refers to the relevant correspondence which begins with the letter dated 11th March, 1976, addressed by the petitioner to the respondent stating that the stamps were not available in the months of February, 1976. The said letter refers to the return of the cheque sent by the petitioner bearing No. 72 560 dated 18th February, 1976, for Rs. 10,290.75 being the contribution for January, 1976, and also the chalan by the bank saying that it has not received the stamps for the value of Rs. 8.25. Similarly, another cheque bearing No. 678668 dated 21st June, 1976, for Rs. 9,606.45 being the contribution for the month of May, 1976, was also returned by the State Bank of India on the ground of non-availability of stamps, which the petitioner intimated by letter dated 7th July, 1976. Hence, the petitioner sought the advice of the respondent as to what should be done because of non-availability of stamps. The said two letters were replied on 17th July, 1976, by respondent stating that he had requested State Bank of India, Madras Main Branch to divert 200 sheets of Rs. 8.25 stamps to its Coimbatore Branch. Therefore, when the delay was due to non-availability of stamps, which resulted in delay in the remittances, there could not be a delay attributed to the petitioner. In spite of these clarifications the respondent had sent a letter dated 15th July, 1978, demanding Rs. 403.45 towards interest for the delay in the submission of contribution cards. This was replied by letter dated 31st August, 1978, again reiterating that nonavailability of stamps was the cause for the delay in submission of contribution cards. Again, respondent sent a letter dated 23rd August, 1978, proposing to recover damages, as listed in the statement appended therein under section 85 (B) of the Act. It was claimed herein that delay had been committed in respect of cards for the months of September, 1975 November, 1975, January, March, May September, 1976 and September, 1977. A reply was sent on 9th September, 1978, repeating what had been earlier represented and narrating the circumstances, which were beyond its control. In almost all cases excepting in one or two, payments had been made on time but the Bank declined to receive the money either because of shortage of or non-availability of stamps. In spite of the representations, the impugned order was passed determining damages for all the months as proposed, even though in the earlier part of the order it has been stated that for September, 1977, the proposal to impose damages is dropped. Hence it is contended that the order is illegal on several grounds.

(3.) THE foremost point that calls for consideration is, whether the respondent can pass a laconic order or is bound to give reasons.