Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.The respondent establishment is covered by the provisios of E.S.I.Act. There was however delay in remitting the contribution. Therefore, the appellant passed an order under Section 85-B of the Act levying damages. The same was questioned by the establishment by filing ESIP No.10 of 2015 on the file of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli. The Labour Court following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2008(1) LLN 491 ? ESI Corporation Vs. HMT Limited held that for attracting levy of penalty, mensrea must be established. In the present case, existence of mensrea to contravene the statutory provision, which is a necessary ingredient for levy of damages has not been established. Therefore, the Labour Court rightly set aside the order passed under Section 85 of the Act. It, however, confined the damages payable by the establishment to Rs.10,000/- . This order is under challenge in this appeal. As already pointed out, the Labour Court rightly applied the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. This appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs.
To
1. ESI Court (Labour Court), Tirunelveli
2.The Record Keeper, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.