BIRENDRA KUMAR MANTRY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the parties are represented through their respective learned counsels.

(2.) In the instant case, petitioner alleges to be the sole proprietor of a chartered accountancy firm, for providing professional services.

(3.) Main grievance of the petitioner is that by an order dtd. 25/2/2020 passed by the respondents under Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'ESI Act ') has erroneously held that the petitioner 's establishment falls under the ESI Act and consequently raised demands by initiating coercive recovery measures, including warrants of arrest.