SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J - (1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the order passed under the provision of Section 45- G(3)(x) of the Employees' State Insurance Act , 1948 has been questioned on the ground that the petitioner has not been provided adequate and sufficient opportunity to put forth his defence, since according to the petitioner, the notice in terms of provision of Section 45-G(3)(x) of the Employees' State Insurance Act , 1948 has been issued on 29.01.2019 which has been received by the petitioner on 30.01.2019, on the same very date, the order has been passed under the provision of Section 45-G(3)(x) of the Employees' State Insurance Act , 1948, as such, without providing an opportunity to look into the quantum, debt recovery proceeding has been initiated by seizing the bank account of the establishment as also the personal account of the Director of the establishment.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the amount as stipulated under annexure-4 i.e. order passed under Section 45-G(3) of the Act, 1948 has been realized, even though, this writ petition was pending.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-E.S.I.C. has submitted that a proceeding under Section 45-A of the Act, 1948 vide order dated 31.07.2018 has been initiated against one Saibal Kunar who happens to be labour supplier in the petitioner establishment, wherein the final order was passed against which, he has preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.5654 of 2018 which was dismissed on the ground of not providing an opportunity to prefer an appeal under Section 45-A of the Act, 1948. The competent authority of the Corporation after looking to the finality of the order passed under Section 45-A of the Act, 1948 has invoked the jurisdiction conferred under Section 45-G(3) for recovery of the aforesaid amount as has been determined under the provision of Section 45-A of the Act, 1948 against the Director namely Saibal Kunar and pursuant thereto, a notice has been issued under the provision of Section 45-G(3) on 28.01.2019 and again on 29.01.2019 and when it has not been received, the jurisdiction conferred under Section 45-G(3)(x) of the Act, 1948 has been invoked, therefore, there is no jurisdictional error in issuing the order under Section 45-G(3)(x) of the Act, 1948. It is not in dispute that Saibal Kunar, Contractor is not supplying the labour to the petitioner establishment and as such being the principal employer, he has got liability to make payment under the said provision and taking into consideration the position of law as stipulated under the provision of Section 45-G(3) , the order under Section 45-G(3)(x) of the Act, 1948 has been passed and hence which suffers from no infirmity. ;