Scope for allowing waiver or reduction is very limited.

V. KANAGARAJ, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari or to call the records in C.M.P. No. 203 of 1991 in E.S.I.O.P. SR. No. 55890 of 1990 on the file of the I Additional City Civil Court, Madras, and to quash the impugned order dated July 30, 1992. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would contend that the second respondent herein had initiated proceeding under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act, 1948, by notice No. TN/INS/IV/8868-III dated December 27, 1985 calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 35, 746.99 towards E.S.I. contribution for the year 1977 and upto November, 1978 in respect of various items referred to in the said notice; that during the said period, the petitioner was not the owner and he was not in the management of the said hotel, but it was carried on by Hotel Gokula by its then Directors, Mr. N. Boralingaiah and others; that the petitioner herein had purchased the assets of the said hotel by virtue of the orders passed by the Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No. 10113 of 1982 dated December 7, 1982 and the orders of the Madras High Court made in Application Nos. 2378, 2379, 2471 and 2472 of 1984 in C.S. No. 151 of 1978 dated July 16, 1984.

The further contention of the petitioner company is that the receiver appointed by the High Court delivered possession of the hotel building and its assets to the petitioner on July 31, 1984. But they were not delivered with the account books and records of the previous management of the hotel and hence the petitioner was not in a position to admit the claim made in the said notice dated January 3, 1986 of the second respondent, nor had the petitioner been in a position to produce the account books and, therefore, by letter dated January 27, 1986, he requested certain particulars from the second respondent, but the second respondent without any intimation, decided the matter as per the order passed on June 25, 1991 under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') calling upon the petitioner to pay the contribution of Rs. 35, 746.99.The further case of the petitioner is that on the said orders passed by the second respondent, the petitioner filed ESIOP before the first respondent challenging the said order of the second respondent along with C.M.P. No. 203 of 1991 under Section 75(2-B) of the Act seeking waiver of the deposit of 50 percent of the contribution amount contemplated therein; that after hearing, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated July 30, 1992 dismissing the C.M.P. No. 203 of 1991 with costs and this order since bears errors apparent on the face of the records and is liable to be quashed, the petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition on certain ground as set out in the grounds of writ petition.

In the counter filed on the part of the respondents, it would be contended that the petitioner hotel failed to comply with the provisions of the Act in spite of several and repeated requests made by the Corporation and hence the Corporation was constrained to send a show cause notice dated April 30, 1986, seeking explanation and with an opportunity for personal hearing on May 29, 1986; that the petitioner neither submitted the explanation, nor attended the personal enquiry. Hence, the enquiry was again fixed on September 5, 1989 informing the same to the petitioner and even on that day, the petitioner's representative requested only for an adjournment from time to time on January 8, 1989, March 9, 1989, March 20, 1989, April 23, 1989, November 10, 1989 and finally on May 2, 1991 and it came to be known that the petitioner was only dodging/adopting dilatory tactics with intend to protract the proceedings; that in the said circumstances, order under Section 45-A was passed on June 25, 1991 with the available information; that the petitioner's contention that he was not liable to pay the statutory dues for the period from September, 1