EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Vs. HARJINDER SINGH ANAND & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint preferred under section 85(a) of the Employees State insurance Act of 1948 (here-in-after referred as the Act of 1948) preferred by the Employees State Insurance Corporation stands rejected. This complaint was instituted somewhere in 1993. The respondent No. 1 was arrayed as accused No. 1. The concern by the name of Popular Gun Works Industrial Area Digiana, Jammu, was also arrayed as a party as respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1 was arrayed in his capacity as Principle employer. The brief complaint copy whereof is annexure "A/2" with this petition makes mention of the facts that the establishment M/s Popular Gun Works Industrial Area Digiana has failed to deposit with the Corporation the contribution which were supposed to be deposited as required under Sec. 39, 40(1) and 40(3) of the Employees State insurance Act read with Regulation 31 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations 1950. The period for which lapse is said to have been committed is Oct. 1991 to March 1992. The assertions made in Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the complaint are relevant and are being reproduced below:-

(2.) The then Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jammu before whom the complaint came to be filed concluded that the corporation has failed to comply with the provisions of Sec. 44 and 45 in as much as there was failure to serve notice under Sec. 44(2) to the respondents. It was, accordingly, concluded that the respondents were denied the right to be heard as contemplated under section 45(a) of the Act. It was also held that as an Insurance Court has been set up under section 75 of the 1948 Act, therefore, before proceeding with the complaint it would be apt that the liability is determined in terms of section 75 of the Act. The fact that an insurance Court has been set up was sought to be substantiated by placing reliance on SRO 157 said to have been issued on 18.8.1994. It is this order passed by the trial court which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

(3.) On behalf of the Corporation it is contended that the learned trial Magistrate has not afforded opportunity of leading evidence to prove the facts on the basis of which criminal liability stood proved. It is urged that unless and until there was a trial on merit, the criminal liability of the respondents could not be determined. It is, accordingly, submitted that it was premature for the trial court to act in the matter it has acted. It is in this manner the order passed by the trial court stands impugned in this petition. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that not only for the reasons mentioned by the trial court, but on account of the vagueness of the complaint and without indicating as to in what capacity the respondent No. 1 has been arrayed as an accused is also required to be gone into. If this is done, then in addition to the reasons given by the trial court, it would become evident that the complaint could not be tried at all.