A writ appeal filed by an appellant against an ESIC prohibitory order for arrears was dismissed. The court held that Section 45-A orders are not mandatory when records are provided, relying on ESI Corporation vs C.C.Santhakumar. The writ petition was dismissed as it challenged a consequential order without challenging the original C-18 notice.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.No.1622 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 18.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.A.No.1622 of 2024 and CMP.No.11414 of 2024
M/s.Sri Gowtam Tex Rep. By its Partner R.Easwaramurthy S/o.Rassappa Gounder No.4B, Gopal Nagar, Near KVR Lay Out Karuvampalayam, Mangalam Road Tiruppur-641 604
...Appellant/Petitioner
Vs
The Recovery Officer Employees State Insurance Corporation 1897, Trichy Road Coimbatore-641 045 .... Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as against the order dated 29714 of 2018 dated 15.04.2024.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Kumarasamy For Respondent : Mrs.G.Narmadha for Mr.G.Bharadwaj
W.A.No.1622 of 2024
JUDGMENT
J.NISHA BANU, J.
This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant-writ petitioner as against the order passed in W.P.No.29714 of 2018 dated 15.04.2024, whereby, the learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ petition filed challenging the prohibitory order dated 06.09.2018.
products and were covered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.
(a) From the year 1995 to 2002, the Company failed to pay their contributions to the ESIC.
(b) On 02.05.2003, the ESIC sent notice calling them to pay
Rs.20,54,823/- for the arrears from 1995 to March 2003.
(c) On 26.05.2003, C-18 notice was sent to the Company calling for
personal hearing on 12.06.2003. The Manager of the company did not attend the enquiry as well as personal hearing.
2/8
W.A.No.1622 of 2024
(d) On 13.08.2003, the Authorising Officer sent the recovery notice
(C-19).
(e) On 21.08.2003, ESIC sent demand notice claiming Rs.20,98,950/without conducting Section 45-A enquiry.
(f) On 30.09.2003, the appellant-company filed an application to the ESIC explaining the reasons for not producing the records and had asked for rehearing the personal enquiry.
(g) Subsequently, the appellant-company paid Rs.4,48,611/- + Rs.1,19,702/- in total Rs.5,68,313/-.
(h) The appellant-company then filed a Writ Petition to quash the recovery notice (C-19). This court granted interim stay on a condition to pay Rs.5 lakhs within 8 weeks from 23.03.2004. Against that order, the Company preferred an appeal. The Division Bench reduced the amount from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.3 lakhs payable within two weeks. Thereafter, an extension petition was filed to extend time to remit the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Division Bench vide order dated 02.06.2004, extended the time to 31.07.2004.
(i) The appellant remitted a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 24.07.2004 and filed a petition for permission to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in installments.
3/8
W.A.No.1622 of 2024
(j) The Division Bench passed orders on 29.10.2004 granting installment
facility and further directed the respondent – ESIC to hear the petition dated 30.09.2003.
(k) The appellant paid the entire balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in three installments before 21.10.2004.
(l) It is the stand of the appellant that on 12.07.2010, the appellant company was engulfed with fire and the entire building and goods were destroyed and thereafter, it did not carry any business activity.
(m) On 25.08.2010, ESIC recovered Rs.1,81,675/- from the appellant.
(n) On 06.09.2018, ESIC sent Prohibitory Order to pay contribution with interest of a sum of Rs.32,05,586.
(o) On 11.10.2018, the appellant filed Writ Petition to quash the Prohibitory order given by the ESIC.
W.A.No.1622 of 2024
in installments and these statements are clearly false and the writ petitioner should be non-suited on this short ground.
W.A.No.1622 of 2024
“ Section 45-A provides for determination of contributions in certain cases. When the records are not produced by the establishment before the Corporation and when there is no cooperation, the Corporation has got the
6/8
W.A.No.1622 of 2024
power to make assessment and determine the amount under Section 45-A and recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue under Section 45-B of the Act. This is in the nature of a best judgment assessment as is known in taxing statutes.”
Internet:Yes/No (J.N.B.J.) (P.D.B.J) nvsri 18.06.2024
7/8
W.A.No.1622 of 2024
J.NISHA BANU ,J. and P.DHANABAL,J.
nvsri
To
The Recovery Officer Employees State Insurance Corporation 1897, Trichy Road Coimbatore-641 045
W.A.No.1622 of 2024
18.06.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Section 45-A order is necessary when the C-18 notice is based on records provided by the establishment?
Whether the writ petition challenging only the prohibitory order without challenging the original C-18 notice is maintainable?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
ESI Corporation Vs. C.C.SanthakumarRelied on¶56
ESI Corporation Vs. C.C.Santhakumar 2007 (1) SCC 584 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s.Sri Gowtam Tex Rep. By its Partner R.Easwaramurthy S/o.Rassappa Gounder No.4B, Gopal Nagar, Near KVR Lay Out Karuvampalayam, Mangalam Road Tiruppur-641 604
The Recovery Officer Employees State Insurance Corporation 1897, Trichy Road Coimbatore-641 045
J.Nisha Banu
P.Dhanabal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
