Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 310 (JHR)

Malti Saha v. Union of India

2012-03-01

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
JUDGMENT H.C. MISHRA By Court :- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel appearing for the Employees State Insurance Corporation. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 07.12.1998 in Complaint Case No. 1539(M)/1998, whereby, the cognizance has been taken under Section 85 (g) of the Employees State Insurance Act against the accused petitioners (Annexure–8). The petitioners have also challenged the sanction order passed by Respondent No.3, the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Patna, as contained in the Sanction Memorandum dated 26th November, 1998, whereby, the sanction was accorded for prosecution of the petitioners under the said Act (Annexure–7). 3. From perusal of the Sanction order, which has been brought on record, as Annexure–7 to this writ petition, it appears that the petitioners, who were the principal employers in the factory, namely, M/s. Peak Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Giridih, had violated the directions to produce the relevant records for inspection as required under Section 45(2) of the Employees State Insurance Act, for which the prosecution of the petitioners was sanctioned by the respondent No. 3, pursuant whereto, complaint case had been filed bearing Complaint Case No. 1535 (M) of 1998 against the petitioners in the court of competent jurisdiction at Patna. 4. The present writ petition was initially filed at Patna High Court and after separation of the State of Jharkhand from the State of Bihar, the present writ petition has been transferred to this Court, but the said criminal case is still pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Patna. 5. Without going into the merits of the case, I find that the petitioners have brought on record as Annexure–5 series, the letters addressed to them by the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Patna, (herein after referred to as the ‘Corporation’), asking them to avail the amnesty scheme of the Corporation for sympathetic consideration of withdrawal of the criminal case against them. The said letters were sent to these petitioners by the Corporation on 12.05.2000. The petitioners replied the said letters through Annexure – 6, which shows that the petitioners were ready to avail the amnesty scheme and they undertook to make deposits well in time and to comply with the requirements. The said letters were sent to these petitioners by the Corporation on 12.05.2000. The petitioners replied the said letters through Annexure – 6, which shows that the petitioners were ready to avail the amnesty scheme and they undertook to make deposits well in time and to comply with the requirements. However, it appears that no reply thereto had been given by the Corporation to the petitioners, though in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation it has been stated that the petitioners had failed to comply with the amnesty scheme. 6. Apparently, it appears that no response had been given to the petitioners by the Corporation to their letter contained in Annexure–6 whereby, the petitioners had agreed to comply with the requirements of the amnesty scheme. 7. From the record, it appears that by order dated 30.07.2002 passed in this case, the operation of the impugned orders, contained in Annexures–7 and 8, had been stayed by this Court. 8. In view of the fact that no response was given to the petitioners even though the petitioners responded to the letters issued by the Corporation for availing the amnesty scheme, I propose to dispose of this writ petition, without going into the merits of the case, in the following terms. 9. Since the matter relates to the district of Giridih, now in the State of Jharkhand, learned counsel for the Corporation submits that final decision has now to be taken by the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation at Ranchi. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioners shall file fresh applications before the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Ranchi within the period of one month from today, for availing the amnesty scheme pursuant to the letters contained in Annexure–5 series, upon which the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Ranchi, shall give the specific information to the petitioners as to what they are required to do for availing the amnesty scheme. If the petitioners comply with those requirements within the time granted by the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Ranchi, he shall take appropriate action for withdrawal of the criminal case against the petitioners. If the petitioners comply with those requirements within the time granted by the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Ranchi, he shall take appropriate action for withdrawal of the criminal case against the petitioners. If the fresh application as directed above is filed within the time granted by this Court, the stay order passed by this Court on 30.07.2002 shall continue to operate until the final decision is taken by the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Ranchi. In case the fresh applications, as directed above, are not filed within time by the petitioners, or the requirements for availing the amnesty scheme are not fulfilled by the petitioners within time, the stay order passed by this Court on 30.07.2002 shall stand recalled. 10. With these directions, this writ petition is disposed of.