AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The ESI Corporation has issued recovery proceedings by the impugned order dated 24.07.2013. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has stated that there was no order passed u/s 45(A) of the ESI Act directing the petitioner to pay contribution. Only after
passing order u/s 45(A) of the ESI Act, if the petitioner fails to remit the amount, then the Corporation could take coercive method like passing the
impugned order. To ascertain the same, the matter is listed today. Today the learned counsel for the Corporation has fairly submitted that though
the order was passed u/s 45(A) of the ESI Act, the same was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded to ESI to pass a fresh order
and thereafter, no fresh order was passed. It is stated that the Writ Petitioner is dragging on in this matter and therefore, they are not able to pass
any order.
In these circumstances, I am of the view that the Corporation is not correct in passing the impugned recovery order without passing a fresh
order u/s 45(A) of the ESI Act in the manner known to law. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as
to costs. Consequently, the Connected Miscellaneous Petitions is closed.