Calcutta High Court
Spanco Bpo Services Ltd. & Anr vs Employees State Insurance Corporation ... on 4 June, 2013
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
ORDER SHEET
WP No. 514 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SPANCO BPO SERVICES LTD. & ANR. Petitioners
Versus
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & Respondents
ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPEN SEN Date : 4th June, 2013.
For Petitioners : Ms. Ahana Sikdar, Advocate
Mr. Arijit Banerjee, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Tarun Chatterjee, Advocate
The Court : Heard Ms. Ahana Sikdar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Tarun Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the Respondents. The Petitioners have challenged the Demand Notices dated 25.2.2013 and 8.4.2013 (See pages 80 and 81) whereby and whereunder the Recovery Officer under the Employees' State Insurance Corporation ordered that the amounts mentioned therein be paid within fifteen days failing which action under Sections 45(C) to 45(I) of the ESI Act would be taken. Normally this Court, considering that the provisions of Section 75 makes the existence of Employees' Insurance Courts as effective alternative remedy, would not have interfered. However, from the statements made in Paragraph 16, it appears that prior to the issuance of the Demand Notices, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the Petitioners. Under the provisions of Section 45(A), it 2 is, inter alia provided, that no Order under Section 45(A) can be passed unless the Principal or the immediate Employer or the person in charge of the factory or the establishment has been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It also appears that a Representation was filed before the Recovery Officer by the Company which was received on 20th April, 2013.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the Recovery officer to consider the said Representation in accordance with law and to take a decision thereon within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Needless to state that the Recovery Officer will bear in mind the provisions of the statute and will also give due credence to the prayers being made by the Petitioners to the effect that they be allowed instalments to clear any outstanding dues.
With the aforesaid observations and directions the Writ Petition stands disposed of with a further direction that till the Recovery Officer passes an order, the Demand Notices would not be made operative as against the Petitioners. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
All parties concerned are to act on a Photostat signed copy of this Order on usual undertakings.
(TAPEN SEN, J.) msen