- (1.) HEARD Sri R. P. Yadav, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tiwari appearing for the respondents. Contention of the counsel for petitioner is that petitioner is principal employer of the Unit M/s. Paper packaging Company, Mohatsim Ganj, Allahabad which is basically engaged in making small paper packets for different purposes such as containing medicines etc. It is urged that on inspection being made, the Inspector under ESI found that working in the petitioner establishment is done manually and strength of the establishment is not more than 8 employees. However, respondent No. 3. Deputy director/recovery officer, ESI, Kanpur is laid to have issued a notice demanding Rs. 67428 towards ESI contribution without considering the record and a recovery certificate in this regard has also been issued for recovery of the aforesaid amount with interest.
(2.) IT is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed a representation dated 3. 6. 2008 before the authority concerned but without deciding it the notice/letter dated 10. 6. 2008 appended as Annexure-10 to the writ petition has been issued, from which it is clear that 4. 8. 2008 was the date fixed in the matter for hearing by the dy. Director/recovery Officer on the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner by this notice has further been directed to come with proof of deposit of the amount with interest on the date fixed i. e. , 4. 8. 2008 otherwise coercive action for recovery, against him would be taken,
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent-corporation Sri rajesh Tiwari has drawn attention of the Court to annexure-1 which is copy of the visit note of the Inspection. He has also urged that the petitioner had not appeared before the authority on 4. 8. 2008 as directed in the letter dated 10. 6. 2008, as such is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. This argument appears to have no force for the reason that the impugned order cannot precede the order of coverage.;