Back
RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY
Ganges Manufacturing Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Employees State Insurance Corporation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
1. The present writ application has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 8th April, 2015, passed by the Deputy Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (in short ESIC) being the respondent No.3. The petitioner also challenges the demand notice dated 6th March, 2017, issued by the Recovery Officer of the ESIC, which is at page 48 of the writ application. The petitioner claims to be the owner of a Jute Mill and is covered under the provisions of Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”). It is the petitioner’s case that challenging the order passed under section 45A of the said Act dated 30th January, 2013, an appeal under section 45AA of the said Act was filed. The same culminated in an order dated 25th June, 2013. Challenging both the aforesaid orders passed under section 45A and 45AA of the said Act, that the petitioner had moved before the Employees’ Insurance Court (hereinafter referred to as the E.I. Court), under Section 75 of the said Act and a case being tender No.100 of 2013, which was later converted into ESI Case No.06/2014 was registered.
2. The petitioner says that during the p
Authority must not invoke Section 45A for best judgment assessment unless there is no submission of required documents; disputes should be resolved in ESI Court.
An appeal against recovery proceedings under the E.S.I. Act is not maintainable without first challenging the correctness of the preceding order under Section 45-A.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when the order passed under Section 45-A of the ESI Act is not challenged and is allowed to become final, the consequential recovery proceedin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of exemption without providing an opportunity of hearing and reliance on undisclosed documents prejudiced the petitioner, violating....
Damages under the E.S.I. Act are discretionary, not mandatory, and must consider genuine hardships, reaffirming that penalties should not automatically apply.
The Court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies under the Employee State Insurance Act before seeking relief through writ petitions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
