Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Samiran Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent- Corporation and perused the record.
(2.) WRIT petition is directed against the order dated 23.1.1992 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) purported to have been issued under Section 45-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1948") as amended from time to time requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 68074/- (Rs. 41464/- towards principle amount and Rs. 16610/- towards interest. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that without passing any order, whatsoever, and without assigning reasons for imposing such liability upon the petitioner, in a wholly illegal and arbitrary manner and with an attitude to harass the petitioner, the said demand has been raised against him. Facts, giving rise to present dispute as borne out from record are as under.
(3.) PETITIONER is engaged in printing work having a factory situate at Kanpur. Application of Act, 1948 to the petitioner is not disputed and according to his own averments, he is regularly depositing contribution under Act, 1948 besides filing regular return and complying various provisions of the said Act. The Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance 23.1.1992 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "RDESIC") issued a notice dated 20.1.1987 stating that petitioner's premises was inspected by Insurance Inspector who had checked the accounts and record for the period 6.8.1986, 8.8.1986 and according to his report, petitioner has not deposited adequate contribution for the period of October, 1985 to June, 1986. The total contribution comes to Rs. 53990.60 but thereagainst only Rs. 21608.15 was deposited leaving a balance of Rs. 32382.45 which he should pay alongwith interest at the rate of six per cent. The notice was issued under the signature of Sri G.S. Sethi, RDESIC. Peririoner replied this notice on 4.5.1987 stating that the demand is wholly illegal since no such dues are outstanding and whatever the amount payable was already deposited. Thereafter another notice was issued by RDESIC on 25.9.1987/5.5.1988 stating that petitioner failed to deposit contribution from October 1985 to June 1986 to the tune of Rs. 32383.45 and there was a deficit payment of interest to the tune of Rs. 14.45 for late payment of contribution for the period of January 1985, May 1986 and January, 1987 which he should pay. No order on petitioner's reply appears to have been passed by RDESIC. The notice dated 25.9.1987/5.5.1988 is a cyclostyle proforma claimed to be on Form C-18. Another notice was issued on 24.4.1990 alleging non-payment of contribution from April 1988 to March 1990 to the tune of Rs. 1,38,970. Para 4 of notice shows that basis for calculation of the said amount was ad hoc and the said notice required the petitioner to submit his reply as to why the said ad hoc determination be not made final. Petitioner himself or through authorized representative was also required to appear before RDESIC on 13.6.1990. A simultaneous notice of the same date, i.e. 24.4.1990 was issued demanding a sum of Rs. 1,11,636/- being unpaid contribution from August 1968 to January 1987. These two notices are under the signature of Deputy Regional Director, Sri R.K. Shukla. All these notices were replied by petitioner by letter dated 30.6.1990 stating that the said demand is wholly fictitious since all payments have been made.;