S.S.NIJJAR, J. - (1.) The petitioner, by way of the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order dated September 15, 2006 (Annexure P-20) passed by the Deputy Director (Revenue) respondent-1.
(2.) The dispute raised in the present petition relates to the assessment of dues computed by respondent-1 for the period from April 1,1997 to March 31,1998 under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (Act for short) towards the employees and payable as employees contribution towards Employees State Insurance (ESI for, short). It is submitted that the dues as computed by respondent-1 are in complete disregard to the order dated May 12, 2006 (Annexure P-11) passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 2940/2006. The petitioner has been regularly depositing the E.S.I, dues as per law without controversy or dispute with the respondent- authorities. It is maintaining full and complete account of the wages paid with regard to the eligible employees under the Act. The same are subject to regular inspection from time to time. The petitioner-company initially received a communication on September 18, 2001 (Annexure P-l) from the Assistant Director (Revenue) to the effect that on the amount totalling Rs. 12,32,10,194/- paid by it, as per its ledger, contribution under the Act amounting to Rs. 80,08,663/- @ 6.5% had not been paid. Thereafter, there was exchange of communication between the petitioner and the respondents. Besides, the representative of the petitioner-company also appeared before the authorities. Thereafter, the Deputy Director (Revenue) (respondent-1) vide order dated January 25, 2006 (Annexure P-6) ordered that contributions totalling Rs. 80,08,663/- be deposited within a period of 15 days failing which the same shall be caused to be recovered under Section 45-C to 45-1 of the Act. The petitioner filed an application dated February 7, 2006 (Annexure P-7) for review of the order passed under Section 45-A of the Act. However, the recovery officer issued a notice of demand dated February 14, 2006 (Annexure P-8) for deposit of the amount of Rs. 1,32,74,476/- which included the contribution for the period from April, 1997 to March, 1998 and also interest under Section 39(5)(a) of the Act. The petitioner-company aggrieved against the aforesaid demand notice filed C.W.P. 2940/2006 in this Court challenging the assessment and demand orders (Annexures P-6 and P-8 respectively). This Court vide order dated February 27, 2006 (Annexure P-9) issued notice of motion and in the meantime recovery of the dues was stayed subject to furnishing bank guarantee by the petitioner-company undertaking to pay the dues mentioned in the notice or any other amount which may be demanded in the proceedings. On the adjourned date, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents. In regard to the interim directions, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that instead of bank guarantee, the petitioners are agreeable to furnish security to the satisfaction of the recovery officer within a period of one week from the date of acceptance of the offer by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents sought time to seek instructions in this regard. The case was adjourned to April 28, 2006 and the interim orders were to continue till then. The case was disposed of on May 12, 2006 (Annexure P-11). This Court was of the opinion that the petitioner had not been given the opportunity of being heard and the liability had been fastened in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. The authority which had granted the opportunity of being heard to the petitioner had not concluded the proceedings but had been transferred. Subsequently, the new incumbent passed the impugned order without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition was allowed on the limited ground that the petitioner had not been granted an Opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the order dated January 25,2006 was set aside. It was observed that the competent authority shall be within its rights to call for the documents required for the purposes of fastening the liability. Besides, it was also observed that it shall be appreciated if the details of the same (documents) is supplied to the petitioner within 15 days from May 12, 2006. If any additional documents were required to be seen during the course of hearing, the authority, it was observed, shall be competent to call for the same accordingly. The respondents thereafter sent a communication dated June 5, 2006 (Annexure P-12) calling upon them to appear before respondent-1 for personal hearing on June 16, 2006 with all relevant documents to explain their case. Thereafter, there was exchange of correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents. Ultimately, the impugned order dated September 15,2006 (Annexure P-20) was passed which is assailed in the present petition.
(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that despite passing of the earlier order by this Court on May 12,2006 (Annexure P-11) in C.W.P. 2940/2006 the respondents have passed the impugned order in disregard to the principle of natural justice without affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner on the merits of the case. It is also contended that liability has been fastened on the petitioner-company without calling for the documents required for determining/fastening the liability. During the course of hearing, it has not been disputed by the learned senior counsel that remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner. However, it is stated that the remedy of appeal envisages deposit of 50% of the amount demanded and it is apprehended that recovery notice would be issued by the respondents and once it is issued, the respondents can inter alia attach all movable and immovable properties of the company under Section 45-C of the Act.;