SUPER SPINNING MILLS LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The orders dated 12.09.2019 and 09.09.2019 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court, Coimbatore are sought to be quashed in the present writ petitions.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner/Mill was already closed on 01.06.2007. On 23.05.2015, the first respondent passed an order determining the contribution from the writ petitioner company at Rs.2,70,250/-, for the period from April 2011 to March 2013. Therefore, the writ petitioner filed a petition under Section 75 of the ESI Act on 25.04.2019 before the ESI Court, Coimbatore along with I.A.No.2 of 2019, to condone the delay of 399 days in filing a petition.

(3.) The ESI Court, without deciding the issues on merits, suo motu raised the question of maintainability under Section 75 of the ESI Act and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has to exhaust the appeal remedy contemplated under Section 45AA of the ESI Act. Therefore, the petition under Section 75 of the ESI Act is not maintainable, without exhausting the appeal remedy under Section 45 AA of the ESI Act.