Summary: M/S Media Ramaiah Shetty Oil Mills challenged an order from the ESI Corporation that demanded unpaid contributions, arguing that their business was not operating during the disputed time. The court supported the order and rejected the appeal.
M/S Media Ramaiah Shetty Oil Mills, a partnership in Anantapur, appealed against an order from the ESI Corporation. They argued that they hadn't hired anyone from February 2000 to September 2001 and from April 2004 onwards, so they didn't owe any ESI contributions.
The ESI Corporation sent several notices and recovery certificates to the firm, demanding payments for the periods they said were inactive. Recovery Inspectors even visited the firm's location with an order to take over the property if payments weren't made.
"The Recovery Inspector has forced the managing partner... by threatening to take over the premises."
The Tribunal looked at evidence from both sides. Meda Chandrasekhar, the firm's managing partner, argued that the order to take over the property was unfair because they hadn't been properly informed. However, the ESI Corporation argued that the firm hadn't followed the rules to officially declare they were closed.
The Tribunal rejected the firm's request, saying the firm didn't provide enough proof that they were closed. The ESI Corporation followed the rules, sending notices and giving the firm chances to respond.
"The Tribunal has correctly understood the evidence... no important legal question is involved in the appeal."
Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Tribunal's decision that the firm had to pay the contributions. The request for the firm to get back the Rs. 50,000 paid under pressure was also denied.
"No changes are needed, the appeal doesn't deserve consideration and is dismissed."
The court decided that M/S Media Ramaiah Shetty Oil Mills was responsible for the ESI contributions and denied their appeal.