Full Judgment
ORDER
SHEET WP No.150 of 2010 GA No.2265 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE VIKRANT FORGE LTD.& ANR.
Versus EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPN.
& ANR.
BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 18th September, 2013.
Mr.Soumya Majumder, Adv.Mr.Dipayan Kundu, Adv..for the writ petitioners Mr.Mihir kundu, Adv..for E.S.I.The Court: The petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.01.2010 passed under Section 45A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act (E.S.I.Act).1948 whereby and whereunder the authorities have held that the petitioners are liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,87,048/- as arrears of the contribution.
The challenge to the said order is thrown basically on the ground that while determining the liability towards non-payment of the contribution, the authorities have taken into consideration the amount incurred for repairs and maintenance of the plant and machinery and the buildings and others which are contrary to the said Act.
Another limb of submission made by the petitioners in this writ petitions is that the authority abruptly ended the proceeding without giving opportunity to the petitioners to produce all the records and, therefore, the order suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice.
The petitioners took out an application, being GA No.2265 of 2013, in the above mentioned writ petition for interim order restraining the respondents from taking any action on the basis of the order which is impugned in the writ petition.
The petitioners allege that on 12th June, 2013, an intimation for recovery of contribution under Sections 45(C)to 45(I) of the E.S.I.Act has been given by the authorised officer to the recovery officer, on the basis whereof the recovery officer issued a demand notice dated 18th July, 2013.
Without going into the aforesaid arena of controversy, on perusal of the parent order which is impugned in the writ petition, it is manifest that the authorities have proceeded to pass the order ex parte.
Although it is recorded in the said order that an opportunity was given to the petitioners to submit the records which it did not submit but it does not appear that such opportunity was actually given or not.
The authorities who passed the impugned order have proceeded that since the petitioners did not submit the statement giving full particulars of the contribution and also did not produce the relevant records, the calculations are to be made on the basis of the record available with the authorities.
To my mind, the authorities ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioners to produce the records and also to submit the statements and should not have acted in haste to impose the liability of payment on account of employees’ insurance fund under the said Act.
Furthermore, this Court finds the authorities have not given sufficient reasons for different heads of accounts indicated in the Column depicted in the said order and, therefore, the order also appears to have been passed without recording any reasons.
This Court, therefore, finds that the order impugned in the writ petition cannot be sustained having not only violation of the principles of natural justice but also bereft of the cogent reasons.
Accordingly, the order dated 18.01.2010 is quashed and set aside.
The respondent no.2 is directed to consider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioners to submit the statement as well as produce documents and after giving opportunity of personal hearing, he shall dispose of the same in accordance with law by giving a reasoned order.
Mr.Majumder, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners undertakes to this Court that his clients are to cooperate with the authorities for disposal of the matter and shall not take any undue adjournment.
Since the parent order dated 18.01.2010 is quashed and set aside by this Court, the letter of demand and recovery proceedings that were initiated stand automatically lapsed and become infructuous.
Accordingly, the letter of demand and recovery proceeding are quashed and set aside.
The writ petition is disposed of in the light of the above observations.
After the disposal of the impugned writ petition, the connected application, being GA No.2265 of 2013, has become infructuous accordingly.
There will be no order as to costs.
(HARISH TANDON, J.) dg2