2011 (1) TMI 1219

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4/01 to 3/03, 4/04 and 5/04. In the notices, the petitioners were informed that in addition to the amount payable, they are also liable to pay interest under section 39(5)(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and other costs. 2. The first writ petition was admitted on March 15, 2005. Pending the writ petition, the court granted an interim injunction on the same day. The second writ petition was admitted on March 17, 2005 and the court granted an interim injunction on the same day. The third writ petition was admitted on March 18, 2005 and on the same day, an interim injunction was also granted. 3. On notice from this court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated October 16, 2006. The contention raised by the peti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... service of the employer automatically. The scope of section 22 came to be considered by a Full Bench of this court in Gowri Spg. Mills ( P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner [2006] 134 Comp. Cas. 33/ 72 SCL 372 wherein it was held in paragraphs 31 and 32 as follows (page 54) : "In Poysha Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Collector, Ghaziabad [1988] 79 FLR 167, a learned single judge of the Allahabad High Court held as follows : 'In the present case the recovery related to claim for wages by the workmen. Admittedly, the petitioner-company has not terminated the relationship of master and servant between the company and its workmen. No case has been made out of lay-off and lock-out or retrenchment or closure. Therefore, so long relationship....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....[2000] 2 LLN 677, following the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner [1993] 2 LLN 548 held that the impugned notice and recovery certificate under section 33(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be regarded as governed by section 22(1) of the SICA. A similar is the view of the Uttaranchal High Court in Uptron India Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court [2004] 2 LLJ 378 and that of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kedia Distilleries v. General Secretary, Chhatisgarh Chemical Mill Majdoor Sangh [2000] 4 LLN 473." 7. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner [2009] 10 SCC 123, while considering the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts. 32. The view we have taken on the interpretation of section 11(2) is in tune with a series of decisions of this court in which the provisions contained in different statutes giving priority to the dues of the State and workers have been interpreted. In the first place, we may refer to some decisions relating to dues of the State." 8. The provision under section 94 of the ESI Act is similar to that of section 11(2) of the EPF Act. Therefore, ....