KUMKUM PAUL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 7/9/2022, Mr. Maitra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 3 to 5 had handed over a bunch of documents comprising of 30 pages to demonstrate that the petitioner was kept informed with regard to the pendency of the proceedings under Sec. 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Further hearing of the application was adjourned in order to enable the petitioner to take instructions on the documents submitted by Mr. Maitra.

(2.) Today, Mr. Sinha, learned advocate, appearing in support of the aforesaid application submits that although his client had intimation with regard to initiation of proceedings under Sec. 45-A of the said Act, however, the order passed under Sec. 45-A of the said Act was not made over to his client. He submits that the aforesaid order dtd. 15/1/2021 has come to light only on 7/9/2022 and 60 days therefrom having not expired, liberty should be afforded to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Sec. 45-AA of the said Act by permitting the petitioner to raise all points as may be available to her. Since no order had earlier been made over to the petitioner, the petitioner had no opportunity to challenge the same. He further submits that the petitioner is not carrying on any business and, as such, the authorities had erred in saddling liability on the petitioner. Mr. Sinha further submits that the petitioner is a lady. As such, notices to show cause as to why a warrant of arrest should not be issued against the petitioner, cannot be executed. The same accordingly should be quashed.

(3.) In support of the aforesaid contention, Mr. Sinha relies on a recent unreported judgment of this Hon'ble Court in WPA 13001 of 2022 (Krishna Sinharay vs. Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation & Ors.).