Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 8th November, 2021
M/S. VISHAKHA FACILITY MANAGEMENT(P) LTD... Petitioner
Through: None.
Through: Mr. K.P. Mavi, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
7 WITH + W.P.(C) 3045/2020 and CM APPL. 10603/2020 M/S VISHAKHA FACILITY MANAGEMENT (P) LTD... Petitioner Through: None.
VERSUS
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION.. Respondent Through: Mr. K.P. Mavi, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The present two petitions have been filed by the Petitioner seeking to quash order dated 30th March, 2020 by which damages have been imposed by the Respondent/Employees State Insurance Corporation against the Petitioner under Section 85-B of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 for the wage periods from June, 2016 to September, 2016 and February, 2017 to May, 2017 in W. P. (C) 3030/2020 as also May, 2014 to May, 2016 in W.P. (C) 3045/2020.
3. The first petition was W.P. (C) 3045/2020 wherein an interim order was granted on 5th May, 2020 directing that no precipitative action shall be taken till the next date of hearing, and the said order was continuing in the 2021:DHC:3504 said petition. Further, in W.P. (C) 3045/2020, on the strength of the interim order passed in W.P. (C) 3045/2020, an interim order was granted on 6th May, 2020. In a connected matter being W.P.(C) 5630/2020, vide order dated 26th August, 2020, the Petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-, as a condition for grant of an interim order, which was also not complied with.
4. On 12th July, 2021, a detailed order was passed by this Court vacating the interim orders granted in these matters. The said order dated 12th July, 2021 reads as under:
5. Even today, none has appeared for the Petitioner. Vide order dated 9th September, 2021 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 5630/2020, time was granted to deposit the sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. The relevant extract from the order dated 9th September, 2021 reads as under:
The said writ petition W.P. (C) 5630/2020 was disposed of.
6. Since there is no representation in these petitions for at least the last two hearings, the petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution. For the period during which the interim orders were in operation and indulgence was enjoyed by the Petitioner, the Respondent would be entitled to recover interest as may be determined by the authorities.
7. With these observations the present petitions, and all pending applications, are disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE NOVEMBER 8, 2021 dj/ad