JAYCHEM PRODUCTS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR D. SITARAMAN, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI Vs. THE D. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, MADRAS AND THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, GUINDY, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner -concern praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent made in his proceeding No.TN/INS -IV/51 -51253 -34, dated 10 -12 -1997 and quash the same, has filed this writ petition.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that with intent to construct a small scale unit in 1986 in the field of manufacture of pharmaceutical products, the petitioner engaged four full workers/representatives to conduct market survey about the feasibility of sales and subsequently, engaged six to nine persons from June 1985 to May 1986 for the purpose of erecting the factory for manufacturing materials required for products, and on completion of the same in May 1986, in mid September 1986, it procured the raw materials and started the manufacturing process with newly appointed expert staff; that the Employees' State Insurance Corporation Inspector visited the factory on 19 -9 -1990 and perused the records and directed to pay the contribution from June 1987 onwards, since according to the Inspector, the factory had employed ten employees, and therefore, the petitioner became liable to pay contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Corporation Act (hereinafter called the E.S.I. Act)

(3.) The petitioner would further state that it also started paying the contribution from June 1987 up -to -date; that the E.S.I. Officer visited the premises and directed the petitioner to pay contribution from September 1986 onwards instead of June 1987; that the petitioner complied with that requirement; that while so, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation issued the assessment order dated 22 -4 -1997 calling upon the petitioner to submit the returns from June 1985 to May 1986 to pay the contribution; that the petitioner disputed the payment and sent a detailed representation dated 20 -5 -1997 on the ground that the manufacturing process was started for the first time only from September 1986 and therefore, the demand account sent from June 1985 to May 1986, is illegal, unjust and contrary to all canons of natural justice; that despite this explanation offered, the first respondent, in the impugned proceedings cited above, dated 10 -12 -1997, directed the recovery of such contribution from the petitioner -concern for a sum of Rs. 9,237/ - and further directed the petitioner to pay interest at the rate of 1.65 per day from 1 -12 -1997, that the petitioner -concern is aggrieved by the said impugned order of recovery, and hence, the writ petition.