The court directed the appellate authority to decide a pending appeal under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, in accordance with law, including the determination of the appeal's maintainability and the correct forum for relief.

Order on Board

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following relief(s):-

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the case of the petitioner from the Appellate Authority for its kind perusal and consideration.

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ quashing and setting the demand notice dated 31.08.2023 (ANNEXURE P-1).

10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ quashing and setting the order dated 27.10.2023 (ANNEXURE P-2).

10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issued appropriate writ directing the Appellate Authority to finally decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 45AA of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.

10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case”

2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner, being the owner of a tipper, obtained registration under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 in the year 2018 with the intention of establishing a transportation business. However, the petitioner could not commence the said business and instead entered into a contractual arrangement with M/s Sindhu Trade Links Ltd., whereby the petitioner supplied the tipper and the said company engaged its own manpower for operation, including compliance with statutory obligations. It is the case of the petitioner that he did not employ any workers and, therefore, was not functioning as an “establishment” under the provisions of the Act, 1948. Subsequently, an order dated 15.05.2023 was passed by the competent authority determining contribution liability of Rs. 3,06,653/- against the petitioner. The petitioner claims that the said order was passed without proper service of notice and in violation of principles of natural justice. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 45AA of the Act, 1948 along with the requisite pre-deposit. The said appeal is stated to be pending consideration before the appellate authority. Meanwhile, recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the concerned appellate authority, which is still pending consideration. It is contended that despite pendency of the appeal, the respondent authorities have initiated recovery proceedings, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner was never engaged in any activity which would classify him as an establishment under the Act, 1948, and no employees were engaged by him. The liability has been fastened arbitrarily without affording proper opportunity of hearing. It is thus prayed that appropriate directions be issued for expeditious consideration of the pending appeal.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the alleged appeal itself is not maintainable, being barred by limitation. It is contended that the appeal under Section 45AA of the Act, 1948 is required to be filed within the prescribed period, and there is no provision for condonation of delay. Therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner is non est in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy by approaching the Employees’ Insurance Court under the relevant provisions of the Act, 1948. Instead of availing the proper forum, the petitioner has preferred an appeal which is not maintainable, and therefore no direction can