Employees' State Insurance Corpn. & Anr. vs Kanknarrah & Co. Ltd. & Ors.

The Court : This is an application filed by the applicant/appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of about 228 days in

preferring this appeal. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also considering the grounds assigned for preferring

this appeal, we are satisfied that there was no laches or negligence on the part of the appellant in preferring the appeal as soon as it was possible.

The delay in preferring this appeal is condoned. This application stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to

costs. GA No. 2434 of 2017 This is application arising out of the appeal appearing the APOT No. 158 of 2017, this application i9s filed by the

appellants for staying the operation of the order passed in the writ application.

The subject matter involved in this writ application setting aside the order 12th April, 2005, 22nd July, 2005 and 17th March, 2006 passed by the

appellant corporation imposing damages and penal interest on the respondent no.1. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration an order

passed by the BIFR arrived at its conclusion. The relevant portion of this order passed by the BIFR is quoted below :

“The company’s contention was that ESIC was claiming interest, damages and penal interest for the period 1980-1994 when no medical

facilities had been provided by ESIC to the company’s workers. While the truth of this statement was accepted by the ESIC’s representative,

he had requested that interest should be paid as the principal dues had already been paid by the company. On considering this matter, the Bench noted

that this was a piquant situation. In view of the facts, the Bench directed that the interest dues including damages and penal interest in respect of the

old ESI dues be waived and the ESIC Authorities could consider refunding the principal amounts paid for the period when no medical facilities had

been provided by ESIC.â€​

After considering the aforesaid order of the BIFR, the learned Single Judge observed that in no unequivocal terms, the BIFR had directed the

appellant corporation to waive the damages and penal interest in respect of its old dues. Under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (special

provisions) Act, 1985 including Section 32 thereof by which the Act and the scheme was given override effect, the claim of the appellant corporation

on account of damages and penal interest did not survive.

We find no error or illegality in the aforesaid observations arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Further, no material is produced before us to show

that the aforesaid order of the BIFR has been challenged in accordance with law before the appropriate forum of law, far less than the fact that the

above order of the BIFR has been quashed or set aside. So long as the above order of the BIFR stands, there is no scope to interfere with the order

passed by the learned Single Judge which is impugned to this appeal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no scope to interfere with

the order impugned to this appeal.

Since nothing further remains to be decided in this appeal, this appeal is treated as on the day’s list. Accordingly this appeal and the application

both are dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified Photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties

upon compliance of all requisite formalities.