Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent No.66-00-040016-000-1302/45-A/SRO/TLI/459-18/ dated 03.12.2024 and the consequential impugned Garnishee order passed by the second respondent in No.66000400160001302/RRC/SRO/TLI dated 22.08.2025 and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew

For Respondents : Mr.R.Ravikumar for R1 & R2

Mr.N.Dilipkumar for R3

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the order dated 03.12.2024, bearing No.66-00-040016-000-1302/45-A/SRO/TLI/459-18, passed by the first respondent and the consequential Garnishee Order passed by the second respondent in No.66000400160001302/RRC/SRO/TLI dated 22.08.2025. By the said impugned order, the petitioner has been called upon to pay a sum of Rs.17,53,389/-, being the arrears of employees’ contribution for the period from February 2013 to April2018 under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948.

2. The petitioner is a school covered under the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, and has been assigned the necessary code under the Act. Therefore, the petitioner is under a statutory obligation to pay contributions in accordance with Section 40 of the Act, read with Regulations 29 and 31 of the ESI (General)Regulations framed thereunder.

3. The first respondent issued a communication dated26.02.2014 stating that payment of contribution to ESI was being withheld due to litigation initiated by the Association of Schools before the High Court. Since the petitioner failed to pay the contributions as required under law, a show cause notice dated 29.10.2018 was issued to the petitioner for the said period, calling upon the petitioner to explain why the contribution specified therein should not be assessed under Section 45-A of the Act. The petitioner did not submit any reply to the show cause notice and also did not participate in the enquiry conducted under Section 45-A of the Act. Thereafter, the first respondent, after considering the materials available on record, passed the impugned order.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is barred by limitation, as it was issued more than five years after the contribution became payable. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the second proviso to Section 45-A of the Act and the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the second proviso to Section 45- A has been interpreted by the Bombay High Court, wherein it has been held that while the assessment fixing the liability for employees’ contribution can relate only to a period of five years, the assessment order itself may be passed beyond the said period of five years. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the proviso does not mandate that the assessment order must necessarily be passed within five years from the date on which the contribution became payable. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in 2019 (5) ALL MR 728 (M/s. Anil Chat Bhandar vs. Deputy Regional Director and another).

6. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side have been considered.

7. Admittedly, the assessment relates to the period from February 2013 to April 2018. The show cause notice was issued on 29.10.2018. The petitioner did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. The impugned order records that a show cause notice was issued and that an opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. However, the impugned order does not indicate that any reply was submitted by the petitioner or that the petitioner participated in the enquiry. Though the proceedings were initia