Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 306
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Arun Bhansali, J.
Salim Ahmed Contractor - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 634 of 2020
Decided On : 23-01-2020
Mr. V.R. Choudhary, for the Appellants; ..., for the Respondents
The main legal point established is that when a specific remedy is provided under a statute, the petitioner must exhaust that remedy before seeking relief through a writ petition.
Headnote:
ESI Contribution - Demand for ESI contribution - The court held that the petitioner must approach the competent authority under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act) to challenge the demand for ESI contribution, as no case was made out for entertaining the writ petition bypassing the alternative remedy.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition against the respondents' action in raising demand for ESI contribution, claiming that the petitioner had not undertaken any work during the period for which the demand was raised.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not indicated any reason for bypassing the remedy provided under the Employees State Insurance Act, and therefore, no case was made out for entertaining the writ petition.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner could bypass the alternative remedy provided under the Employees State Insurance Act to challenge the demand for ESI contribution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner must approach the competent authority under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act to challenge the demand for ESI contribution, as no reason was indicated for bypassing the said remedy.
Final Decision: The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of, with the direction to approach the competent authority under the provisions of the Act.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against action of the respondents in raising demand against the petitioner in relation to his ESI contribution.
2. Submissions have been made that for the period the demand is being raised/has been raised, the petitioner had not under taken any work and had already completed work with Binani Cement in January, 2014 itself.
3. The orders passed by the respondents raising demand and/or making determination are all open to challenge under provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act). No reason has been indicated in the petition for bypassing the said remedy.
4. In view thereof, no case is made out for entertaining the writ petition bypassing the alternative remedy. The petitioner may approach the competent authority under the provisions of the Act in accordance with law.
5. With the above observations, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.
6. If any proceeding is filed by the petitioner the same may be decided expeditiously and appropriately in accordance with law by the authority.
