LexM/S. GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. versus EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 190 A M/S. GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (Civil Appeal No. 8432 of 2001) B JULY 7, 2008 ff [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 c s.45(A) - Employer's contribution - Delayed payment of - Liability of employer to pay interest - Held: Liability to pay interest is statutory- There is no power of waiver- There- fore, any question of compromise or settlement, does not arise-Interest. D The demand raised by the respondent-Corporation for contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 on the component of efficiency bonus was chal- lenged by the appellant-employer and ultimately the lat- ter agreed to pay and paid the same. Thereafter the Cor- E poration demanded payment of interest on the amount paid belatedly, which was questioned by the appellant in a writ petition before the High Court. The stand of the appellant was that the amount was paid under a compro- mise arrived at between the parties as was apparent from the order of the ESI Court to the effect that thereafter noth- ...y-• F ing was payable by the appellant. The case of the Corpo- ration was that there was statutory liability to pay the in- terest and, therefore, there was no question of any com- promise to waive the interest. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the employer filed the instant G appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the court f...-~~ HELD: 1.1. As there was delay in making the pay- ment of the contribution, the Corporation issued notice H 190 I - ..- M/S. GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. v. EMPLOYEES STATE 191 INSURANCE CORPORATION [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] on 29.6.1990 at the first instance. Thereafter the order was A passed under Section 45(A) of the Employees' State In- surance Act,1948 on 23.7.1992. The same was challenged before the ESI Court in which an interim stay was granted on 9.10.1992. During the pendency of the matter there was re-verification and the quantum payable by the ap- B pellant was worked out. The liability to pay interest is statutory. There is no power of waiver. The question of any compromise or settlement does not really arise. [Para 6] [194-D-F] 1.2. Even otherwise, the order of the ESI Court re- C ferred to and relied upon by the appellant is of no assis- tance in this regard. It only noted statement of the appel- lant that he had deposited contribution payable. The ref- erence to "no further due" is obviously relatable to the contribution payable and nothing beyond that. [Para 6] D [194-F-G] CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8432 of 2001 From the final order dated 19/12/2000 of the High Court E of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 13918/ 2000 M.L. Varma, Meera Mathur and Satya Mitra for the Appellant. C.S. Rajan, Annupam Mishra and VJ. Francis for the Re- F spondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to be order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana G High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. Controversy lies within a very narrow compass. Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short the 'Cor- poration'), the respondent herein raised a demand for contribu- H 192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. ·f-...:. A tion under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short the 'Act') on the component of efficiency bonus for the period January 1988 to September, 1989 by order dated 23.7.1992. The de- mand was challenged before the ESI Court under Section 75 of the Act. Pending the proceedings before the ESI Court, Corpora- s tion by letter dated 1.3.1997 asked for production of record for the !' · purpose of re-verification for the period from 1989 to 1991 and c from 1992 to 1994 to determine the amount payable. The respondent Corporation on re-verification determined the actual amount payable as follows: (a) 1/88 to 3/89 as Rs.2,26,454/- (b) 4/89 to 3/94 as Rs.5,28,071/- Total Rs.7,54,525/- D Appellant agreed to pay the contribution and paid the same >- in October/November, 1997. Appellant took the stand that there was a bonafide dis- pute about eligibility. Since eligibility to "efficiency bonus" un- der the scheme was subject to attendance of 50 days in a quar- E ter is payable and paid quarterly. Appellant took the stand that it falls outside the definition of wages under Section 2(22) of the Act. Appella
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.