DEEPAK CHANDNANI NCR CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICER TAMIL NADU ESI CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE show cause notice dated 20.02.1998 issued by the respondent in proceedings No.TN/INS-IV/51-52366-23/Ins.IV claiming Rs.1,58,877.84 from the petitioner in respect of arrears of contribution payable to by M/s.Leather Designs (P) Limited, 116, Mount Poonamallee Road, Nandambakkam, Chennai - 600 089, for the period 1991-1992, 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) MR.S.Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned show cause notice is challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the respondent, having already claimed contribution from the petitioner in respect of the period 1992-93 and 1993-94, is estopped from making any further claim against the petitioner for the very same period. It is contended that the petitioner received a notice on 29.10.2004 from the Recovery Officer of the Employees- State Insurance Corporation claiming a sum of Rs.90,729/- as arrears of contribution, interest and damages for the period 1992-93 and 1993-94 and on receipt of such notice, the petitioner also paid the said sum of Rs.90,729/- by way of demand drafts drawn on Citibank N.A., Mumbai, bearing D.D.No,710332 for Rs.30,000/- and D.D.No,710333 for Rs.60,729/- dated 29.11.2004 payable to -E.S.I.Fund A/c No.1- at Chennai, and the same were acknowledged by the Recovery Officer, ESI Corporation, Chennai.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for the respondent/E.S.I. Corporation contended that the petitioner, instead of giving his objection after receiving the show cause notice, hurriedly filed the present writ petition before this Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that enough opportunity was already given to the petitioner to appear before the respondent and to put forward his objections. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is having a remedy to file an appeal before the ESI Court and without exhausting that remedy the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner herein before this Court and as such this petition is not maintainable.