SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,J. - (1.) I.A. No.4783 of 2016 The instant application stands dismissed as not pressed. I.A. No.4784 of 2016 This application has been filed by one Satawan Kamat, an employee working in the canteen of the appellant-Company. He claims himself a representative of the workmen working in the canteen, however, no authorisation on behalf of the other workmen has been produced along with the application for intervention. The workmen were not party before the Writ Court and in view of the dispute raised by the writ petitioner, their presence was not even necessary, and hence, the present application is dismissed. I.A. No.5418 of 2016 The instant application stands allowed, as prayed for. The annexed documents are taken on record and they shall form part of the memo of appeal. L.P.A. No.311 of 2016 The grievance of the appellant writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner") before the Writ Court was in respect of order dated 31.05.2016 which discloses liability of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,64,46,460/- as ESI dues for the period between July 2010 to May 2015 with interest upto 24.05.2016. Consequent upon communication dated 31.05.2016 to the Recovery Officer, order dated 14.06.2016 was passed directing the General Manager (ER,W and CSR), M/s Tata Motors Limited, Jamshedpur to remit Rs. 1,64,69,615/- from the account of the petitioner-Company for satisfying the aforesaid ESI dues. The order of assessment was passed on 17.08.2015.
(2.) Mr. V.P. Singh, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reiterating the stand taken before the Writ Court, submits that order passed by the respondent-Corporation under Section 45A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 has been passed without hearing the petitioner-Company. It is submitted that no notice was issued by the officer of the Corporation before a final determination of contribution for which the petitioner-Company is liable has been made. Referring to orders passed in W.P.(C) No.6970 of 2006 and W.P.(C) No.122 of 2010, the learned Senior Counsel submits that before the application of the petitioner filed under Section 87 of 1948 Act is decided, no order under Section 45A can be passed. Per contra, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Employees' State Insurance Corporation supporting the impugned order dated 04.07.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.3358 of 2016 submits that the plea of "no notice" taken by the petitioner is seriously disputed by the Corporation by producing dispatch registers etc. It is submitted that in spite of a limited protection granted by the Writ Court, the petitioner failed to render accounts for several years and, in fact, the exemption application filed by the petitioner does not cover whole of the period, for which order under Section 45A has been passed.
(3.) In so far as, the plea taken by the petitioner that no notice was served upon it, we find that taking note of the various documents placed on record by the respondent-Corporation, the learned Writ Court recorded a prima facie satisfaction as to service of notice upon the petitioner, before order under Section 45A was passed. The learned Writ Court has dealt with this issue in the following words: 5. "Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation refers to the contents of their counter affidavit. Taking the Court through the chronology of facts, it is stated that petitioner has in his supplementary affidavit accepted receipt of letter dated 17.6.2015 calling upon him to pay the contribution, which is Annexure-14 to his supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has sought to dispel the contention regarding the lack of service upon petitioner of the letters dated 20.7.2015, Annexure-A series and the order of assessment dated 17.8.2015 Annexure-B series passed under section 45 A of the ESIC Act, 1948 by referring to the extract of the dispatch register and the receipts of the registry enclosed thereto under which the same were dispatched to the petitioner. It has also been pointed out that these letters were dispatched not only to the petitioner but also to his other partners. Petitioner therefore cannot feign ignorance of the assessment proceeding. Reference is also made on the letter, Annexure-C dated 25.5.2016 which is in relation to initiation of recovery proceeding under Section 45 C to 45 I of the ESIC Act, 1948 addressed by the Assistant Director of the Corporation to Recovery Officer with copy to the petitioner and other partners. According to him, the said letter has also been dispatched to the petitioner as per the extract of the dispatched letter enclosed thereto. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation also submits that these documents maintained in the ordinary course of business in the performance of statutory duties by the ESI authority should be treated as prima facie service of notice as presumption of regularity is attached to official proceeding........." ;