Dismissed¶39

M.Subramanian v. the Deputy Director

Madras HC5 Jun 2025WP/18531/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ESI Act 1948 Section 45 A contribution determination; deemed service of show cause notice on principal employer through establishment; notice returned “Door locked”; opportunity of hearing / natural justice; ex parte order under Article 226; writ petition dismissed; ESIC Deputy Director SRO-Coimbatore; attachment of savings account and recovery of entire demand on 24.02.2025; sole proprietor of GST-registered pharmacy; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Service of notices was properly effected: the show cause notices sent to the petitioner's establishment were delivered and acknowledged, and although the notice to the principal employer's address was returned “Door locked”, service on the establishment is deemed service on the principal employer. ¶34

M.Subramanian Vs the Deputy Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 05.08.2021 passed by the respondent under Section 45 A of the ESI Act is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that proper notice and a fair opportunity were not afforded to the writ petitioner.

¶20

Court's answer

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Despite sufficient opportunities — the show cause notice served and acknowledged, and the hearing communication for 13.07.2021 served on the employer's unit on 20.04.2021 — the petitioner neither replied to the show cause notice nor appeared at the personal hearing.

¶38

Key takeaways

The contention that the petitioner had no prior notice of the proceedings is totally false; since the only ground of challenge stood disproved, the writ petition lacks merit.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P.T. Asha, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of an order dated 05.08.2021 (Ref. No. 56001191040000999/852021508) passed by the Deputy Director, ESIC, SRO-Coimbatore under Section 45 A of the ESI Act, 1948 raising contribution against M.Subramanian, sole proprietor of M/s.Rithish Pharmacy, for the period 01.04.2018 to 31.01.2021. The sole ground of challenge — want of proper notice and fair opportunity — failed: the show cause notices were delivered and acknowledged at the establishment, the notice to the principal employer's address was returned “Door locked” but deemed served, and the hearing communication for 13.07.2021 was served on 20.04.2021; the petitioner neither replied nor appeared. The Court held the plea of no prior notice totally false and the petition devoid of merit; it was dismissed with no costs and connected W.M.P.Nos.20800 & 20801 of 2025 were closed. The petitioner had learnt of the order only upon attachment of his savings account on 24.02.2025, whereby the entire demand was recovered.

¶1

WP.No.18531 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

W.P.No.18531 of 2025

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.20800 & 20801 of 2025

¶9

M.Subramanian Sole Proprietor Of M/S. Rithish Pharmacy, Shree Apartment, 15, Travellers Bungalow Road, Coimbatore -641 018.

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The Deputy Director Employees's State Insurance Corporation, SRO-Coimbatore, Coimbatore.

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Calling for the records leading to the issuance of order bearing reference No. 56001191040000999/852021508 dated 05.08.2021 passed by the Respondent herein and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : M/s.S.P.Sri Harini For Respondent : M/s.S.P.Srinivasan

¶16

1/6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

WP.No.18531 of 2025

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The only ground on which the order of the respondent is sought to be challenged is that the proper notice and a fair opportunity have

¶21

not been afforded to the Writ Petitioner.

¶22

2 . Brief Facts are as follows:-

¶23

3 . The petitioner is the sole proprietor of a concern in the name and style of M/s.Rithish Pharmacy which is registered under the GST enactments for which purpose a consultant has been engaged to ensure statutory compliance.

¶24

4 . The petitioner would contend that his business has been

¶25

wrongly registered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ' ESI Act'), as the business did not employ 10 or more employees. Without appreciating this fact the respondent had passed the impugned order dated 05.08.2021 under Section 45 A of the ESI Act for contribution due from 01.04.2018 to 31.01.2021.

¶26

2/6

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

WP.No.18531 of 2025

¶29

¶30

5 . The petitioner would contend that before passing the

¶31

impugned order proper notice has not been issued. The show cause notices were sent to the business premises of the petitioner which for the most part has been shut since December 2020 and to his incorrect residential address where the petitioner no longer resides. The petitioner came to know about the order only upon the attachment of his savings account on 24.02.2025 whereby the entire demand has been recovered. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition.

¶32

6 . Heard the counsel on either side and perused the records.

¶33

7 . A perusal of the impugned order would clearly show that the

¶34

show cause notices which were sent to the petitioner’s establishment had been delivered and an acknowledgement received. The notice sent to the address of the principal employer was returned with the postal remarks "Door locked". Since the notice was served on the employer’s establishment, it is deemed that the notice has been served on the principal employer. However, the petitioner has not replied to the

¶35

3/6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

WP.No.18531 of 2025

¶38

show cause notice and has not appeared to represent his case. Thereafter, yet another communication was sent for hearing date 13.07.2021. This was served on the employer's unit on 20.04.2021 and an acknowledgement received. Once again, the petitioner/employer had not attended the personal hearing on 13.07.2021. Therefore, though sufficient opportunities have been given the petitioner has not appeared before the authority. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner did not have a prior notice of the proceedings is totally false. Since the only ground of challenge is that the notice has not been served on the petitioner and the contrary has been proved, the Writ Petition lacks merit.

¶39

8 . Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶40

05.06.2025

¶41

(shr) Index : Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶42

4/6

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

WP.No.18531 of 2025