B MOHANACHANDRAN NAIR PROPRIETOR Vs. ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Proprietor of Prashanthi Cashew Company at Kanyakumari District. He has come forward to challenge an order dated 07.06.2007 issued by the second respondent, Recovery Officer, Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESI) issued in terms of Section 93A of the ESI Act.

(2.) THE said recovery notice informed the petitioner that one M/s.Paravathi Cashew Company was at default from paying contribution for the period from 4/01 to 8/02 for a total amount of Rs.4,33,152/-. It was also stated that since the said establishment has been transferred and the petitioner has taken over the unit, they are liable to pay the said amount. Challenging the said notice issued by the Recovery Officer, the writ petition came to be filed.

(3.) HOWEVER, in paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it was stated that the petitioner was able to collect only the Provident Fund records by M/s.Parvathi Cashew for the period October 2001 to August 2002 and based on the said records, it was found due of Rs.4,443/- was pending and the same was paid by the petitioner. The said payment was made only for the purpose of smooth functioning of the factory, but that does not mean the petitioner has accepted any liability as if he is a transferee. It was also admitted that a show cause notice was issued and a personal hearing was fixed on 03.04.2006. The petitioner was represented by his clerk S.Krishnankutty. It was contended that the order under Section 45-A dated 12.05.2006 was erroneously passed.