Chennai Court Sentences Actress Jayaprada To Six Months Imprisonment Over Non-Payment Of ESI Dues

The court noted that since the gravity of the offence was serious, no leniency could be considered and thus there was no alternative to impose sentence. The court also noted that since Employees State Insurance Act was a socio welfare legislation which was enacted for the benefit of employees, the crime committed in the present case was a socio-economic offence and was thus heinous and deplorable.

“The Employees State Insurance Act is a piece of social welfare legislation enacted primarily with the object of providing certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and also to make provision for certain others matters incidental thereto. The Act in fact tries to attain the goal of socio-economic justice enshrined in the Directive principles of state policy under part 4 of our constitution, in particular articles 41, 42 and 43 which enjoin the state to make effective provision for securing, the right to work, to education and public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement. Thus, the commission of crime is socio – economic offence. Therefore, the offence committed is heinous and deplorable,” the judge noted.

Jayaprada and her bothers were partners of a theatre known as M/s. Jayapradha Cine Theatre. As per Section 40 of the ESI Act, the Principal Employer shall pay both the contributions, i.e., Employer's share of contribution, and Employees' share of Contribution in respect of every employee in the first instance and the Principal Employer is entitled to recover from the Employees, their share of contribution from their wages relating to the period in respect of which the contribution is payable.

The case of the prosecution was that Jayaprada and other partners had failed to remit the contributions and even though the ESIC, after determining the contribution payable at Rs. 52,982, had directed them to make the contribution within 15 days pf communication of order, they had failed to comply with the orders and were thus liable under the Act.

Though Jayaprada had argued that the Theatre was wound up and was non-functional, the court noted that the period of wound up of the Theatre was much belated to the period of commission of crime. thus, the court held that the respondent’s contention was futile and therefore finding that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, the court ordered accordingly.

Case Title: Employees State Insurance Corporation v. M/s. Jayapradha Cine Theatre and others

Case No: Calender Case No. 9723 OF 2005