A.K. INDUSTRIES 1655-58 MIE BAHADURGARH (ROHTAK) THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY D. MUKHARJEE Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION THROUGH ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PANCHDEEP BHAWAN SECTOR-16 FARIDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition challenges the order of damages assessed by the respondent-ESI Corporation for delay in remittance of Employee's Contribution. The amount payable was Rs.65,202/-, the default arising between the period from June, 1981 to July, 1983. The amounts had been paid on various dates between 1984 to 1989 and through a notice dated 29.07.1991, the Corporation had demanded Rs. 12,063.85 as interest. To this notice, reply by the petitioner had been given on 26.08.1991 explaining the Corporation that the demand was time barred and after realizing the entire amount, there was no justification for claiming interest. Simultaneously, it appears an order was passed under Section 85-B of the ESI Act raising a demand of Rs.49,102.96 as payable. The petitioner made a representation immediately on 01.09.1991 stating that the demand had been made without any prior notice and the show cause notice was only with reference to interest but there was ho show cause notice demanding damages. There was yet another representation made on 07.10.1991, which had been rejected vide order dated 15.11.1991.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner refers to the fact that the order under Section 85-B had been rendered without any notice to show cause against such levy. The order is non-speaking one and it does not set out any reason as to how the amount has been arrived at. The order is also vitiated by the fact that it does not take into account any other mitigating facts and circumstances such as what was set out even in the representation that the petitioner's firm had been closed due to financial crises and that it had not been dealt with even at the time when the petitioner's representation was rejected through the letter issued on 15.11.1991.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raised an objection that there was a statutory remedy by way of an appeal under Section 75 but it had not been availed only because there was a requirement of having to deposit 50% of the amount demanded. The notice for interest as well as for damages have been issued. While the petitioner had admitted to have received the notice demanding interest, it is falsely contended that there was no receipt of show cause notice for assessment of damages. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that it has been stated in the reply that the show cause notice had been issued and the petitioner has hot filed a rejoinder denying the same.