The main legal point established is that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy to challenge the assessment made under Section 45-A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 before the Employees’ Insurance Court.

ORDER :

1. Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed to correct description of ministry of all the respondents as “Ministry of Labour and Employment (Government of India), Namkum, Ranchi.”

2. Office is directed to make necessary correction, as stated above, in the cause title of the writ petition.

3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the prohibitory order as contained in letter no. 2903 dated 08.02.2021 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) whereby the Recovery Officer, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Namkum, Ranchi (the respondent no. 3) has purportedly asked the Branch Manager, S.B.I. Main Branch, City Centre, Bokaro for liquidation of the alleged dues and to furnish documents under the threat of recovery of assessed amount. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the notice dated 28.06.2021 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued under Section 45-G of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short, “the Act 1948”) by the respondent no. 3 directing the Manager (Pres-W/CCLC), M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro to comply the said notice within three days.

4. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on instruction, submits that assessment of the E.S.I. Contribution has already been made by the Assistant Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Namkum, Ranchi (the respondent no. 4) under Section 45-A of the Act, 1948 on 29.10.2020. Since, the petitioner did not make the payment of the said assessment amount, the impugned prohibitory order has been issued for realisation of the same. It is further submitted that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of challenging the order of assessment passed by the respondent no. 4 by filing an application under Section 75 of the Act, 1948 before the Employees’ Insurance Court. Hence, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the impugned prohibitory order dated 08.02.2021 and the notice dated 28.06.2021 have been issued by the respondent no. 3 for recovery of the amount assessed under Section 45-A of the Act, 1948 as well as that the petitioner has efficacious remedy to file an application under Section 75 of the Act, 1948 challenging the assessment made under Section 45-A of the said Act before Employees’ Insurance Court, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this stage.

6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse in the matter as provided under law.