MANAGING PRTNER Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from the judgment of the Employees Insurance Court, Kollam in Insurance Case No.24 of 2006.

(2.) THE appellant is an establishment covered by the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, "the Act"). The Inspector of the corporation claims to have visited premises of the appellant on 23.06.2005 and verified its records for the period from 2001-2002 to 2002-2003. That was followed by the Corporation issuing recovery notice to the appellant in form C18 requiring the appellant to deposit '.44,654/- as contribution. The appellant challenged that order in the Insurance Court in the above said proceeding contending interalia, that the appellant was not given any opportunity of being heard before the amount was fixed by the Corporation. It was contended before the Insurance Court that as per proviso to Sec.45A of the Act, no order for recovery of amount could be passed without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Insurance Court took the view that Sec.45A of the Act has no application and dismissed Insurance Case No.24 of 2006. Hence the appeal.

(3.) SEC .45A of the Act states that where in respect of a factory or establishment no returns, particulars, registers or records are submitted, furnished or maintained in accordance with the provisions of Sec.44 or any Inspector or other official of the Corporation referred to in Sub sec (2) of Sec.45 is prevented in any manner by the principal or immediate employer or any other person, in exercising his functions or discharge his duties under Sec.45, the Corporation may, on the basis of information available to it, by order, determine the amount of contributions payable. The Proviso says that no such order shall be passed by the Corporation unless the principal or immediate employer or the person in charge of the factory or the establishment has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.