TTK PRESTIGE LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT/DEPUTY DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Show Cause Notice dated 06.06.2014 issued by the respondent is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(2.) The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner made a submission that the impugned show cause notice is nothing but the review of the award passed under Section 45-A of the ESI Act, 1948 in Order dated 16.11.2011. Such a review cannot be initiated, as the respondent is not empowered under the Act to review the final order passed under Section 45-A of the Act. Thus, the show cause notice impugned is without jurisdiction and without any authority. To substantiate the said contention, the learned Senior counsel reiterated that though Section 75 of the Act provides an adjudication before the ESI Court, the petitioner has chosen to file the writ petition in view of the fact that very issuance of show cause notice is without jurisdiction and therefore the writ petition is to be entertained.

(3.) The facts in nut shell enumerated in the present writ petition are that the petitioner/establishment is covered under the ESI Act and it has been regularly paying contribution in respect of all eligible employees. Pursuant to certain inspection carried on in petitioner's establishment on 20.07.2011, the respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner/establishment claiming that for a period from 2007-2008 to 2009-2010, the petitioner was liable to pay the contribution of Rs.21,38,51,276/-. In terms of the above notice, the respondent held an enquiry under Section 45-A of the ESI Act. The petitioner submitted its reply dated 22.09.2011 establishing that there is a typographical error in the amount claimed in the show cause notice and also on merits. The petitioner pointed out various facts and details regarding the salary reconciliation. Considering the explanation, the Authority competent passed a final order in proceedings dated 16.11.2011 under Section 45-A of the ESI Act. The said order became final and as per the said order, the petitioner also had paid the contributions. Thus, further show notice issued by the same authority reviewing the earlier order passed under Section 45-A of the ESI Act is without any authority under Law.