- (1.) I.A. No. 4537 of 2013 This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 249 days in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal. Having heard the Counsel for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in the Interlocutory Application, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay, we, therefore, condone the delay in preferring the present L.P.A. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 4537 of 2013 stands allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 227 of 2013 With I.A. No. 4538 of 2013 With I.A. No. 4539 of 2013 The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 1407 of 2011 dated 25.9.2012, whereby the petition preferred by the respondent has been allowed by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the present appellant dated 14.1.2011, which is a demand notice or recovery notice of the amount payable under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as the 'ESI Act, 1948'). Having heard the Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the present appellant is the original respondent in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1407 of 2011. The respondent had preferred a writ petition challenging the demand notice dated 14.1.2011, which was in pursuance to the order passed by this appellant dated 24.8.2010 for recovery of the amount at Rs. 1,18,676/- under the ESI Act, 1948. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the respondent.
(2.) It appears that the present appellant had given notice to the respondent dated 10.8.2007. The respondent appeared before the ESI authority and gave application on 23.8.2007 for adjournment and for taking further instructions. This application was never rejected by this appellant. No further hearing was given by the appellants to the respondent after 23.8.2007 and straightway an order was passed on 24.8.2010 i.e. approximately after three years and on the basis of the said order, demand notice was issued on 14.1.2011 for the recovery of the amount at Rs. 1,18,676/-.
(3.) It appears that the demand notice is based upon the order dated 24.8.2010, which is at Annexure-6 to the writ petition. No reasons have been assigned in the said order. The said order is thoroughly a non-speaking order. Moreover, no opportunity of hearing has been given to the respondent and unilateral and ex-parte decision has been taken by this appellant.;