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 pendency of the proceedings before the E.I. Court, the respondent No.1 introduced a scheme popularly known as “New Amnesty Scheme, 2014” (hereinafter referred to as the “said Scheme”) for withdrawal of criminal cases filed against insured persons and employees under Sections 84, 85 and 85A of the said Act and for settlement of cases filed by the employers under Section 75 of said Act.

3. Mr. Choudhury, learned Advocate representing the writ petitioner, by drawing attention of this court to page 21 of the writ application submits that since the petitioner had already filed proceedings before the E.I. Court under Section 75 of the said Act, disputing the contribution payable by the petitioner and since the assessment made by the respondents were not made on actual basis, the petitioner became entitled to apply in terms of Clause A(2) of the said Scheme. The petitioner says that the aforesaid Scheme was extremely attractive since an employer who had raised a dispute as regards contributions payable by him, was entitled to pay the contribution as per his records or in the alternative if no records could be produced and the assessment having been made in respect of wages, other than shown in Regulation 32 of the register, to pay contribution not less than 30% of the assessed amount, provided, assessment has not been made on actual basis.

4. He says that withdrawal of Court case with prior permission of the Court, for effecting out of Court settlement, was made a condition precedent for applying under the said Scheme. By referring to Annexure-A to the said Scheme, which is at page 34 of the writ application, he says that the petitioner, as required, duly applied as per Annexure-A, for withdrawal of the case pending before the E.I. Court. It is submitted that on the basis of the application made by the petitioner, by order No.8, dated 24th of December, 2014, the E.I. Court was, inter alia, pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the case in order to avail benefits under the said Scheme, by adjusting the security given by the petitioner towards the Scheme. Consequent upon withdrawal of the aforesaid Court case, by an application in writing dated 14th January, 2015, the petitioner had exercised its right to avail the benefit of the said Scheme. It is still further submitted that in compliance of the provisions of the said Scheme, the petitioner had complied with the terms of deposit of 30 per cent of the total demand raised by the respondents. According to the petitioner, the respondents not only acknowledged the said application but also accepted payment made by the petitioner. The petitioner says that subsequently, the petitioner was shocked to receive a communication dated 8th April, 2015, issued by the respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner’s applicatio