The garnishee order was quashed as the appellate authority's ruling on contribution liability was comprehensive, preventing double recovery under differing claims.

ORDER :

D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

A. The Writ Petition:

The writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent relating to the garnishee order passed under Section 45G of the Employee State Insurance Corporation Act, 1948 , bearing Ref.No. CBE/RECY/56001155380000699, dated 28.05.2025, to quash the same, and consequently to direct the first respondent to refund a sum of Rs.61,10,983/- recovered from the fifth respondent pursuant to the garnishee order back to the petitioner’s bank account, together with interest on the said sum.

B. The Case of the Petitioner:

2. The case of the petitioner is that by an order dated 28.01.2020, assessment of the amount payable by the petitioner, towards contribution for the period from 01.01.2015 to 31.08.2019, was determined by the respondents as Rs.60,55,427/-. Respondents found that the employer had paid only a sum of Rs.7,01,437/-, and the balance payable was arrived at Rs.53,53,990/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 45AA of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948(ESI Act). By order dated 27.04.2022, the appellate authority determined the total contribution for the said period from January 2015 to August 2019 as Rs.8,16,763/-. After considering the fact that the employer had already deposited a sum of Rs.5,60,000/-, the appellate authority directed that the balance of Rs.2,56,763/- be paid. The petitioner paid the same on 15.11.2022.

2.1 Thereafter, the authorities once again started recovery proceedings on the ground that even though the original order under Section 45A of the Act determined the amount as Rs.53,53,990/-, the order was restricted to the C.18 (adhoc) amount alone, as the show cause notice was issued only in respect of the C.18 (adhoc) amount, that is, a sum of Rs.22,37,591/-. No notice was issued for the actual amount, that is, Rs.31,16,399/-. In view thereof, a second set of proceedings was initiated to again recover the balance sum payable, that is, Rs.31,16,399/-.

2.2 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22318 of 2024.The writ petition was disposed of by holding that the appellate authority’s order was for the entire assessment. However, in the final paragraph, without quashing the recovery proceedings, the petitioner was directed to get a clarification from the appellate authority. The petitioner did not move the appellate authority for clarification, but instead moved the writ Court itself for clarification on the ground that the final paragraph was meant for the respondents and not for the petitioner and therefore contended that the reference to the petitioner was an error. However, the clarification petition in W.M.P.No.4040 of 2025 came to be disposed of by an order dated 20.02.2025. The clarification order mentioned that since the petitioner was clear that the appellate authority’s order covered the entire amount, the petitioner need not file any clarification petition.

2.3 When the matter stood thus, once again the proceedings impugned in this writ petition, namely the garnishee order dated 28.05.2025, was passed, pursuant to which the money was recovered from the bank account and the petitioner is before this Court.

2.4 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue has been finally determined by the appellate authority by way of the order under Section 45AA and thereafter by this Court in the earlier round of writ petition, and therefore the respondents are in error in issuing recovery proceedings once again.

C. The Respondents’ case:

3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities would submit that the appeal under Section 45A A could have been filed only against the determination made under Section 45A . It can be seen from the ope