HOTEL KALINGA ASHOK Vs. DIRECTOR (REV II) ESI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Narendra Kishore Mishra, learned senior advocate along with Mr. Nitish Kumar Mishra, learned advocate appear on behalf of petitioner. Learned senior advocate submits, impugned is annexure 10 being notice dtd. 2/9/2014, of demand to defaulter issued by the Recovery Officer, for recovery of principal contribution of Rs.2,17,963.00 and Rs.2.00 for cost as well as further interest at Rs.71.66 per day with effect from 5/6/2014 till date of payment. He submits, in respect of said alleged principal contribution of Rs.2,17,963.00, notice dtd. 9/2/2010 was issued by the Corporation. Said notice is part of annexure 1 series. He submits, his client has specifically stated in paragraph 3(c) of the petition that said notice was one issued under sec. 45-A in Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.

(2.) He submits, another notice of same date was also issued. His client replied to both notices. At page 24 and part of annexure 2 series is reply dtd. 19/4/2010 of his client, specific to the notice for recovery of alleged contribution of Rs.2,17,963.00. There was no determination inasmuch as there is no order of it. Straightaway the Corporation embarked on recovery resulting in impugned demand. This was in clear violation of first proviso in sec. 45-A. He seeks interference.

(3.) Mr. Ray, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Corporation. He submits, the notice in question was not issued under sec. 45-A. He relies on sec. 44 to submit, inspection was made and on discrepancies found, the demand.