Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 706 (GAU)

Sundari Mohan Seva Bhawan v. Union of India

2015-06-09

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2015
JUDGMENT UJJAL BHUYAN, J. Heard Mr. G.C. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Nandi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5. Also heard Mr. S. Sarma Barua, learned Central Govt. Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the legality and validity of the order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the Assistant Director (Inspection), Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Guwahati rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner for exemption from the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. Case of the petitioner is that it is a benevolent and charitable trust rendering medical services to the people. Petitioner is running a health centre where health services are provided to the needy people on “no profit no loss” basis. Inspection was carried out on the premises of the petitioner by the authorities of the Employees State Insurance Corporation (Corporation) whereafter it was held that the establishment of the petitioner is covered by the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (Act) and petitioner was called upon to comply with the provisions of the Act w.e.f. 01.01.2009. Petitioner had submitted a representation seeking exemption. Since representation was not disposed of, petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP (C) No. 3949 of 2014 which was disposed of on 22.08.2014 by directing consideration of the representation. Accordingly, the representation was considered but rejected vide the impugned order dated 10.12.2014. It is this order which is under challenge in the present proceeding. This Court vide order dated 17.03.2015 had issued notice and passed an interim order staying the impugned order dated 10.12.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being a charitable trust operating a health centre on “no profit no loss” basis is not covered by the provisions of the Act. Further submission is that the Assistant Director who had passed the order dated 10.12.2014 has no jurisdiction to pass such order. Mr. Nandi, learned counsel for the Corporation has produced the record. He submits that establishment of the petitioner is covered by the provisions of the Act. Due procedure was followed before making assessment of the dues of the petitioner which has been assessed at Rs. 8,59,113/-. Mr. Nandi, learned counsel for the Corporation has produced the record. He submits that establishment of the petitioner is covered by the provisions of the Act. Due procedure was followed before making assessment of the dues of the petitioner which has been assessed at Rs. 8,59,113/-. He has referred to various provisions of the Act to contend that the Act is a welfare legislation and considering the statutory mandate of the Act, petitioner is bound to comply with the provisions thereof unless exemption is granted by the appropriate Government under Sections 87 & 88 of the Act. He also submits that petitioner has got adequate and efficacious alternative remedy for ventilating its grievance and therefore this writ petition is not maintainable. Submissions made have been considered. Record produced has also been perused. On a careful examination of the provisions of Act, it is seen that under Section 75 thereof, if any question or dispute arises as to whether any persons is an employee within the meaning of the Act or he is liable to pay the employees contribution or any other matter which is in dispute between a principal employer and the corporation in respect of any contribution or benefit or other dues payable or recoverable under the Act or any other matter required to be decided, such question or dispute shall be decided by the Employees’ Insurance Court in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Under Sub Section (3) of Section 75, Civil Court jurisdiction has been barred in matters to be decided or adjudicated by the Employees’ Insurance Court. Under Section 82 of the Act an appeal shall lie to the High Court from the orders of the Employees’ Insurance Court if it involves a substantial question of law. Thus from the above, it is evident that petitioner has got statutory alternative remedy for adjudication of its grievance. When alternative remedy is statutorily provided, this Court may not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is a settled proposition of law and no extraordinary circumstance has been shown to justify invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court despite statutory alternative remedy being available. Accordingly and without expressing any opinion on merit, petitioner is relegated to the forum of Employees’ Insurance Court for adjudication of the dispute raised. This is a settled proposition of law and no extraordinary circumstance has been shown to justify invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court despite statutory alternative remedy being available. Accordingly and without expressing any opinion on merit, petitioner is relegated to the forum of Employees’ Insurance Court for adjudication of the dispute raised. If the petitioner approaches the Employees’ Insurance Court within a period of 30 (thirty) days from today, the same shall be considered by the Employees’ Insurance Court on merit in accordance with law. For this period of 30 (thirty) days the stay order passed by this Court on 17.03.2015 would continue to enable the petitioner to move the Employees Insurance Court. However, if the petitioner does not move the Employees’ Insurance Court within the period indicated above, the stay order would stand vacated after expiry of 30 (thirty) days from today. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Record produced by Mr. Nandi, learned counsel is returned back.