Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honourable Mr Justice V. PARTHIBAN
M/s Somasundaram Mills – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director (Recovery) – Respondent
WP/28133/2021
ESI ACT - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - Petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy under the ESI Act - Petitioners have not explained why they have chosen to approach this Court directly without availing the alternative remedy - Writ petitions are not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, textile mills, filed writ petitions challenging prohibitory orders issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESI) for the recovery of dues. The petitioners argued that the orders were illegal and arbitrary.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners had not exhausted their alternative remedies under the ESI Act and had not provided a plausible explanation for not doing so. The court also found that the petitioners had not raised any grounds that would justify the court's intervention at that stage.
Issues: Whether the writ petitions were maintainable given that the petitioners had an alternative remedy under the ESI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that parties must exhaust their alternative remedies before approaching the court. The court also noted that the petitioners had not raised any grounds that would justify the court's intervention at that stage.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions as not maintainable.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.01.2022
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.PARTHIBAN
W.P.Nos.28133 & 28128 of 2021
and
W.M.P.Nos.29730, 29732 & 29723 of 2021
1.M/s.Somasundaram Mills
2.M/s.The Kaleeswara Mills,
3.M/s.Kishnaveni Mills,
4.M/s.Om Parasakthi Mills,
All are represented by
The General Manager (Technical)/
Officer In-Charge,
Southern Regional Office,
National Textile Corporation Ltd.,
35-B, Somasundaram Mills Road,
Coimbatore-641 009.
... Petitioner in W.P.No.28133 of 2021
M/s.Coimbatore Murugan Mills,
A Unit of National Textile,
Rep. by its Manager-Technical,
Post Box No.7004,
Mettupalayam Road,
Coimbatore-641 043.
... Petitioner in W.P.No.28128 of 2021
Vs.
1. The Deputy Director (Recovery)/
Recovery Officer,
Employees State Insurance Corporation
Sub-Regional Office,
No.1897, Trichy Road,
Ramanathapuram,
Coimbatore 641 045.
2. The Branch Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
1st Floor, Kings Complex, Church Compound,
Dr.Nanjappa Road Branch,
Coimbatore-641 018. ... Respondents in W.P.No.28133 of 2021
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1. The Deputy Director (Recovery)/
Recovery Officer,
Employees State Insurance Corporation
Sub-Regional Office,
No.1897, Trichy Road,
Ramanathapuram,
Coimbatore 641 045.
2. The Branch Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Dr.Nanjappa Road Branch,
Coimbatore 641 018.
3. The Branch Manager,
Corporation Bank,
P.B.No.119, No.816, Oppanakara Street,
Coimbatore 641 001.
... Respondents in W.P.No.28128 of 2021
PRAYER in W.P.No.28133 of 2021:Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of
Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
prohibitory order No.56/5974, 5975, 6261, 7010-11/RRC dated
09.11.2021 issued to the second respondent Bank by the first
respondent herein and to quash the same.
PRAYER in W.P.No.28128 of 2021:Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of
Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
revised prohibitory orders No.CBE/RECY/CP-3/56/005966/101 dated
06.12.2021 issued to the second respondent Bank and the third
respondent Bank, by the first respondent Recovery Officer, ESI,
Sub-Regional Office, Coimbatore – 641 043 for the recovery of
Rs.7,14,492/- from the petitioner Mill and to quash the same.
In both W.Ps
For petitioners .. Mr.C.V.Vijayakumar
For Respondents .. Mr.C.V.Ramachandra Moorthy,
Standing Counsel for R1
Mr.K.Srinivasa Moorthy,
Standing Counsel for R2
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed against the prohibitory
orders issued by the respondent Corporation dated 09.11.2021 in
No.56/5974, 5975, 6261, 7010-11/RRC
and No.CBE/RECY/CP-
3/56/005966/101 dated 06.12.2021.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2. In the entire affidavit filed by the petitioners in these
writ petitions, nothing has been whispered and explained as to
why the petitioner Companies have chosen to approach this Court
directly without availing the alternative remedy that is
provided under the ESI Act. When the learned counsel for the
petitioners was confronted by this Court at the time of
admission, the learned counsel was unable to give any plausible
answer as to why the alternative remedy was not resorted to.
3. Moreover, this Court does not find any worthy ground to
intervene at this stage. Whatever be the circumstances under
which, the impugned orders were passed, it is always open to the
petitioners to assail those orders by availing efficacious
alternative remedy which is available under the statute. It is
not open to the petitioners to approach this Court directly. The
grounds raised in the affidavits can always be raised by the
petitioners when they avail the alternative remedy.
4. For the above said reasons, thi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
