TUTICORIN THERMAL POWER STATION INDUSTRIAL CO OP SOC LTD Vs. DEPUTY REGIONAL DIRECTOR E S I CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated December 17, 2004. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant filed the writ petition challenging the demand notice issued under section 45-B of the Employees' State Insurance act. In our opinion, the petitioner/appellant has' a clear alternative remedy of filing an application under Section 75 the Employees' state Insurance Act before the Employees' insurance Court. We cannot approve this kind of practice of directly filing writ petition in this' court when a clear alternative remedy is available. We have repeatedly held in Indian additives Limited v. Indian Additives employees Union, 2005-I-LLJ-900 (Mad) and in Madura Sugars Staff Union and Others v. Madura Sugar Mills, 2005-II-LLJ-5 (Mad) that when alternative remedy is available ordinarily that must be availed of. That is the settled legal principle that has been repeatedly held by the supreme Court in Premier Automobiles limited v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke, AIR 1975 SC 2238 : 1976 (1) SCC 496 : 1975-11-LLJ-445, Rajas than State Road Transport corporation v. Krishna Kant, AIR 1995 SC 1715 : 1995 Supp (1) SCC 268 : 1994-I-LLJ-136; Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, AIR 1999 SC 22 : 1998 (8) SCC 1 and U. P. State Bridge corporation Ltd. and others v. U. P. Rajya Setu nigam S. Karmachari Sangh, 2004 (4) SCC 268 : 2004-II-LLJ-9

(3.) HENCE we dismiss the writ appeal and also the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy before the Employees' insurance Court under Section 75 of the employees' State Insurance Act.