EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, CALCUTTA Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., DURGAPUR STEEL PLANT, DURGAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both sides are present. The opposite party has filed its opposition. Let it be kept with the record. Heard both sides over this application filed by Employees' State Insurance Corporation (herein to be referred as the Corporation), under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated July 19, 2002, passed by the Judge, presiding over Employees' Insurance Court, West Bengal in connection with Case No. 58 of 2002. The allegation of the Corporation as it appears from the instant application, is that the opposite party challenged the notice of claim issued by the Corporation and in connection with that challenge, the opposite party also preferred another application for temporary injunction to restrain the Corporation from claiming the amount or taking any step in the matter of realisation of the amount. The Corporation contends that the learned Judge by his order granted the prayer of temporary injunction without taking into account the mandatory provision of Sec. 75(2-B) of the E.S.I. Act whereunder the opposite party was under obligation to deposit 50% of the claim amount or the learned Judge on recording proper reason may either waive the deposit or reduce the same.

(2.) Appearing for the Corporation, the learned advocate contends that language of Sec. 75(2-B) is very much clear and the intention made for the provision was not mere directory, but, it was mandatory, of course, there was a rider for waiving or reducing the amount, but, there must be proper reason behind exercising that discretion. The learned advocate, therefore, contends that as the order was not preceded by the deposit as required under the Act, the order itself is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Appearing for the opposite party, the learned advocate, first of all, has raised a preliminary question regarding maintainability of this application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, contending inter alia that there is provision for appeal under Sec. 82(2) of the Act and when there is an alternative remedy, the petitioner cannot avail of the extraordinary provision of Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.