IMPORTANT POINT
The Court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies under the Employee State Insurance Act before seeking relief through writ petitions.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Smith, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 6.

2. These three writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal as they involve similar issues and cause of action.

3. By way of these batch of writ petitions, the action of authorities under Employee State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1948) has been challenged.

4. The facts and sequence of events which is gathered from the pleadings of the parties, necessary for determination of the writ petitions are recorded herein below:

A. WP(C) No. 4139/2014 :

I. According to the respondents, they carried out an inspection in the premises of the petitioner on 20.12.2008 in exercise of their power under the Act, 1948. On 01.01.2009, a notification under Sub Section 3 of Section of the Act, 1948 was issued notifying 1st January, 2009 as the appointed date on which the provision of Chapter-IV (except Section 44 and 45 of the Act, 1948 which was already brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI (except Sub Section 1 of Section 76 and Sections 77,78,79 and 81, which have already been brought into force), was notified to be applicable in the areas in the State of Agartala which falls with in the Revenue Village- Agartala, Jogandranagar, Khayrpur Mdhuban Village, Lankamura, Barjala, Kunjaban, Badharghat Revenue Village in Agartala.

II. On 16.03.2010, a notification was issued by the Labour Department, Government of Tripura in exercise of power under Sub Section 5 of Section 1 of the Act, 1948 whereby 15.03.2010 has been declared as the appointed date on which all the provisions of the ESI Act, was extended to various establishments as enumerated and specified in Schedule-I of the said notification, which included hotels or restaurants wherein 20 or more persons were employed at any of the preceding 10 months from the date of notification.

III. On 20.07.2011, another notification under Sub Section 5 of Section 1 of the Act, 1948 was issued appointing 07.07.2011 as the date on which all the provisions of the ESI Act was extended to various establishments which also included hotels and restaurants wherein 10 or more persons are employed or were employed, on a day preceding 12 months of such effective date.

IV. On 01.10.2012, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner demanding payment of contribution under ESI Act, 1948 for the period with effect from January 2009 to August, 2012. In the aforesaid show cause notice, it was reflected that the total numbers of employee are 11, against whom the contributions were asked from the petitioner.

V. Though in the affidavit, a stand has been taken that inspection was carried out on 20.12.2008, however, in the show cause notice dated 01.10.2012, no date of visit was reflected and it was kept blank.

VI. Thereafter, on 12.11.2013, Regional Office, ESI, Tripura, issued a letter to the Recovery Officer, ESI, Bamunimaidan, Guwahati to recover an amount of Rs. 3,08,439/- (Rupees Three Lakh Eight Thousand Four Hundred Thirty None Only).

VII. In the meantime, on 11.12.2013, another show cause notice was issued for period from September, 2012 to September, 2013.

VIII. Pursuant to a communication dated 12.11.2013, the Recovery Officer, Bamunimaidan, Guwahati passed a Prohibitory Order on 11.12.2013 asking the Branch Managers of HDFC Bank, Agartala Branch and Axis Bank, Agartala Branch wherein the petitioner was maintaining its account.

IX. The petitioner also received a communication dated 20.12.2013 issued by the Chief Manager of the UCO Bank communicating the petitioner that they have received a Prohibitory Order from the ESI to recover an amount of Rs. 3,10,602/- and they have marked lien in the account of the petitioner.

X. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an reply to the show cause notice dated 23.11.2013 inter alia taking a stand that the petitioner were not aware of the fact that they are covered under the ESI Act, 194