Delhi District Court
M/S Jupiter Hospitality Service ... vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 20 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT
CONTROLLER, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided By : Sh. Fahad Uddin
ESIC 6/2018
In the matter of :-
M/s Jupiter Hospitality Service Private Limited
through its Authorized Representative,
1525, Ground Floor, Sector-A, Pocket B & C,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070
........Petitioner
versus
Employees State Insurance Corporation
Through its Regional Director /
Recovery officer, Sub Regional Office,
C-149, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi-20 .........Respondent
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 75 OF ESI ACT, 1948
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 30.11.2018
DATE OF RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT: 16.01.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment/order, I shall dispose of the present application filed by the applicant / petitioner ( M/s Jupiter Hospitality Service Private Limited) through its AR against the respondent / Employees State Insurance Corporation through its Regional Director / Recovery Officer under Section 75 of ESI Act, 1948. The brief facts necessary to decide the present case may be described as under:-.
Digitally signed by FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:00:13 +0530 ESIC No. 6/2018 Page 1 of 34 Petitioner's case as per the petition.
2. It is the case of the petitioner / applicant ( M/s Jupiter Hospitality Service Private Limited) that the petitioner is a private limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered officer at Flat No.1525, Sector-A, Pocket B & C Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-62. The respondent is a body corporate to provide for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and to make provision for certain other matters in relation thereto. The petitioner was allotted code number 2000062630001001 by the respondent. The petitioner vide letter dated 10.12.2014 informed the respondent for change of their office address from 3111, Sector-A, Pocket B & C Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70 to 1525, Ground Floor, Sector-A, Pocket B & C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70. The petitioner received information from their banker HDFC Bank Ltd R. K. Puram, New Delhi vide letter dated 05.10.2018 and letter addressed to ICICI Bank dated 22.10.2018 issued by the respondent and directed the bank to attach the bank accounts of the petitioner and its directors. The petitioner approached the respondent immediately with the letter dated 05.10.2018 and contacted the official of the respondent and during the inquiry it was revealed that certain recovery of Rs.12,08,242/- and Rs.46,26,366/- being principle amount is due and recoverable. The petitioner raised objection to the official of the respondent that the petitioner never received any communication from the respondent for the inquiry / proceeding initiated by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 45 A of the Act and any order passed against the petitioner U/s 45A of the Act. No communication was delivered to the petitioner and in the absence of effective delivery of notice/ communication Digitally signed by ESIC No. 6/2018 Page 2 of 34 FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:00:25 +0530 , any proceeding / order is bad in law, illegal and not maintainable and liable to be quashed. The petitioner requested the official of the respondent and submitted that the demand raised by the respondent is at very higher side as this amount was never due and payable to the respondent by the petitioner and petitioner also shown the balance sheet and other documents available with the petitioner. The petitioner regularly deposited contribution with the respondent and as per the challan enclosed total Rs.20,71,644/- was deposited during the period August 2009 to February 2013. The respondent already received Rs.4,92,770/- only after the attachment of personal account of the director of the petitioner from ICICI Bank in the month of October, 2018 and the respondent also received Rs.1,80,000/- from ICICI Bank after attachment of bank account of the petitioner in the month of 22.10.2018. Since the records / documents are very old, the petitioner filed some of the documents which the petitioner found and trying to search other documents / records and it will be filed as soon as they are found. The amount/ contribution determined by the respondent is arbitrary without any supporting document and on the basis of imagination / presumptions that too without proper service of proceeding u/s 45A of the Act. No order u/s 45A of the Act was served to the petitioner and respondent did not adopt the prescribed procedure under the Act while determining the contribution for the period in question against the petitioner. The determination of amount of contribution by the respondent must not be without any basis and to determine the amount of contribution and to fix the liabilities three things are essential i.e. the employee, the employer and wages payable to the employee. Thus, the respondent attached the bank accounts of the petitioner and its director without considering Digitally ESIC No. 6/2018 Page 3 of 34 signed by FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:00:35 +0530 that the petitioner is a private limited company and director of the petitioner company cannot be held liable personally for non- deposit of contribution / arrears. Hence, the impugned orders for recovery are arbitrary, malafide, illegal, baseless and without justification under provision of ESI Act and recovery order is bad in law as the respondent should have identified the employees in the records of the ESIC / petitioner so that the employees are entitled to claim various benefits. The amount of contribution is not demanded merely to fill the coffers of the respondent. The petitioner has a good prima facie case in his favour and is likely to succeed in the same and hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court on the following grounds:
(a) The proceeding for recovery against the petitioner is illegal as no communication was ever delivered to the petitioner for the determination of contribution and without proper service of notice and thus the proceeding for determination of contribution and alleged order of recovery is improper, illegal and unjust.
(b) No order for recovery against the petitioner ought to have been passed without effective notice of the proceeding for determination of the contribution amount.
(c) The respondent without considering and adjusting the amount of contribution deposited by the petitioner prior to passing of orders of recovery in question.
(d) The order passed for the period of contribution is time barred i.e. beyond the period of five years as prescribed under the Act and thus the order is defective, illegal and liable to be quashed.
(e) No proceeding for recovery could be initiated against the petitioner without considering the records available with the respondent at the time of passing of the order.
Digitally signed by FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
ESIC No. 6/2018 2026.04.01
13:00:53
+0530
Page 4 of 34
(f) The order and proceeding is ultra virus as the same was
passed without given reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend themselves.
(g) While passing the order, the respondent failed to justify the demands raised by the respondent as to who are the employees against whom the contribution was determined and what are the benefits extended to those employees. There was no identification of employees, no list of employees with their names was there at the time of ascertaining the contribution amount against the petitioner.
(h) As the ESI Act is social legislation and it was meant to provide certain benefits like sickness, maternity and injury etc. to the employees therefore, the employees are to be identified in the records of the ESIC so that the employees are entitled to claim various benefits.
Hence, due to these grounds, the petitioner has prayed that the letter dated 05.10.2018 and C-19 dated 21.07.2016 and 08.06.2017 as mentioned in the prohibitory order along with any recovery proceeding against the petitioner and its directors be set aside and the amount attached / received by the respondent may be refunded along with interest under the ESI Act to the petitioner. Prayed accordingly.
Respondent's case as per the written statement.
3. Written statement was filed in the present case by the respondent / ESIC wherein it has been submitted by the respondent / ESIC that the petitioner has not come before this Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this court. The petitioner has deliberately concealed the fact that a similar petition was filed by the petitioner in the ESI Digitally signed by ESIC No. 6/2018 Page 5 of 34 FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:01:05 +0530 Court Faridabad, Haryana with ESI petition no.223/2014 in order to get a favourable order from Faridabad Court despite the fact that the said court had no jurisdiction to try the said case and hence, the said petition in Faridabad Court was dismissed in default by invoking the provision under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. The petitioner is trying to mislead the court and playing fraud upon this court. The petitioner was facing a criminal case (cheating) registered by the CBI / ACB branch, New Delhi and the CBI already collected the data of contributions and tallied with the information provided by the petitioner and found that the data provided in respect of contribution by the petitioner is incorrect. The petitioner never informed to the respondent in respect of change of their address and documents filed by the petitioner in this regard is forged and fabricated. The petitioner is a habitual defaulter and all letters were sent to the petitioner / employer at his given address by speed post. Letter C-18 (actual) dated 10.01.2017 for Rs.46,26,366/- was delivered to the petitioner / employer on 14.02.2017 by hand. C-18 (actual) letter dated 28.10.2015 for Rs.13,62,325/- was also delivered by hand to the petitioner employer. Further, letter C-19 was also delivered dated 21.07.2016 for Rs.17,97,457- on 14.02.2017 and it is a totally false statement of the petitioner / employer that he had not received any letter. C-18 (actual) letter dated 28.10.2015 was duly received by the representative of petitioner on 12.06.2016, C-19 on 14.02.2017, C-18 (actual) dated 10.01.2017 on 14.02.2017 and the said representative acknowledged the said notices. The petitioner contention that they were not aware about it is totally false, fabricated and vague and the petitioner is liable to pay all the dues with interest as per the demand of respondent corporation. The respondent further stated that the amount Digitally signed by FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
ESIC No. 6/2018 2026.04.01
13:01:15
+0530
Page 6 of 34
demanded by the respondent is short contribution payable by the petitioner on the basis of inspection and the amount determined by the respondent is based on inspection report in which short contributions were found.
4. The respondent further reiterated in the WS that letters were sent to the petitioner / employer at his given address by speed post. Letter C-18 (actual) dated 10.01.2017 for Rs.46,26,366/- was delivered to the petitioner / employer on 14.02.2017 by hand. C-18 (actual) letter dated 28.10.2015 for Rs.13,62,325/- was also delivered by hand to the petitioner employer. Further, letter C-19 was also delivered dated 21.07.2016 for Rs.17,97,457- on 14.02.2017 and it is a totally false statement of the petitioner / employer that he had not received any letter. The above contribution is on actual basis demanded by the respondent and no order u/s 45 A is required. It is admitted case of the Petitioner that the amount is to be paid by them but actually they had not paid. The contribution was calculated on the basis of actual contribution and the petitioner is liable to pay the same. The balance sheet is also looking like a forged and fabricated documents as no salary head is shown anywhere including profit and loss account. The respondent admitted that the petitioner used to deposit the contribution but the amount demanded by the respondent is short contributions payable by the petitioner / employer on the basis of inspection and the petitioner had not shown the documents to the respondent. The respondent followed the procedure under the ESI Act, 1948 while determining the contribution for the period in question against the petitioner. The amount determined by the respondent is based on the inspection report in which the short Digitally signed by ESIC No. 6/2018 Page 7 of 34 FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:01:24 +0530 contribution was found and the demand of the respondent is as per law and procedure. Hence, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition of the petitioner with heavy cost with a direction to the petitioner to pay the contribution amount along with damages and interest.
5. It may be noted that no replication / rejoinder to the WS of the respondent / ESIC was filed by the petitioner in the present case. After completion of pleadings between the parties, arguments were addressed by the counsels for parties on the application under Section 75 (2B) ESI Act filed by the petitioner in the present case and vide order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the court, the said application of the petitioner under Section 75 (2B) ESI Act was disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to deposit 25% of the claimed amount within four weeks. The said 25% amount was directed to be inclusive of the amount already recovered by attachment by the respondent from the petitioner and it was also directed that if the already recovered amount is more than25% of the claimed amount, then no further amount need to be deposited by the petitioner and the petitioner shall be entitled to claim refund only after trial of the present petition.
Issues:-
6. Thereafter, out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the court for adjudication in the present case vide order dated 05.12.2022:-
i) Whether the letter dated 05.10.2018 along with C-
19 dated 21.07.2016 and 08.06.2017 issued by the respondent to the petitioner is liable to be set aside ? OPP.
ii) Whether this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the present matter in view of ESIC No. 6/2018 Digitally Page 8 of 34 signed by FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:01:36 +0530 previous decree passed under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC of Faridabad ESI Court ? OPR
iii) Relief.
Petitioner Evidence.
7. In order to prove its case against the respondent, the petitioner got examined one witness i.e. PW-1 Shri Rishipal Bharti, who is the AR of the petitioner in the present case. PW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A on court record bearing his signature at point A & B and the said witness relied upon the following documents in support of the case of the petitioner:-
(i) Copy of Board Resolution dated 28.10.2018 in favour of PW1 is Ex.P-1.
(ii) Copy of letter dated 10.12.2014 to inform the respondent for change of their office address is Mark-A.
(iii) Copy of letter dated 05.10.2018 and letter addressed to ICICI Bank dated 22.10.2018 issued by the respondent thereby directing the bank to attach the bank account of petitioner is Mark-B and Ex.P-4.
(iv) Copy of Balance Sheet for the period 2007 to 2013 is Ex.P-5 (colly).
(v) Copy of ESIC challan is Ex.P-6 (colly) It may be noted that documents Ex. P-2 & Ex. P-3 as mentioned in the affidavit of PW-1 were photocopies and therefore the said documents were de-exhibited and marked as Mark A & B. The said witness was duly cross examined by counsel for respondent on 19.08.2023 and after conclusion of his ESIC No. 6/2018 Digitally signed by FAHAD Page 9 of 34 FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:01:47 +0530 cross-examination, PW1 was discharged in the present case. No other witness has been examined on behalf of petitioner in support of his case and PE was closed on 19.08.2023 by the petitioner.
Respondent's Evidence:
8. To disprove the case of the petitioner, respondent got examined three witnesses in the present case i.e. RW1, RW2 & RW3. RW1 Shri T. K. Chaudhary, Deputy Director ESIC tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/1 on court record and said witness relied upon the following documents in support of case of the respondent:-
(i) Order of case bearing no.CS-55824-2014 dated 04.07.2018 is Ex.RW1/A
(ii) Letter dated 10.01.2017 and 28.10.2015 are Ex.RW1/B and RW1/C (OSR).
(iii) Letter of reference dated 21.07.2016 is Ex.RW1/D.
(iv) Form No.ESI-CP-2 dated 16.06.2017 and notice to defaulter dated 27.07.2016 are Ex.RW1/E (colly) (OSR)
(v) Inspection report already Ex.RW2/A. RW1 Shri T. K. Chaudhary was duly cross examined by counsel for petitioner on 27.08.2024 & 25.04.2025 and after conclusion of his cross-examination, the witness was discharged in the present case. RW2 Shri Kumar Subodh Prasad, Assistant Director ESIC tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.RW2/1 on court record and said witness relied upon calculation sheet and letter dated 23.06.2016 which is Ex.RW2/A Digitally signed by ESIC No. 6/2018 FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:Page 10 of 34
2026.04.01 13:01:58 +0530 (OSR). RW2 was duly cross examined by counsel for petitioner on 23.07.2024 and after conclusion of his cross-examination witness was discharged in the present case. RW3 Shri Gurmeet Singh Anand, Ex-Assistant Director, ESIC tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. RW3/A on court record bearing his signature at point A & B and said witness also relied upon the calculation sheet and letter dated 23.06.2016 which is Ex.RW2/A on court record. RW3 was duly cross examined by counsel for petitioner on 25.04.2025 and after conclusion of his cross-examination RW3 was discharged in the present case. No other witness has been examined on behalf of respondent /ESIC in the present case and respondent evidence was closed on 25.04.2025.
Final Arguments:
9. Thereafter, final arguments were addressed in the present case by the Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Counsel for the respondent on 01.12.2025 and 16.01.2026 before this court. During the final arguments, Counsel for the petitioner stated that on the basis of testimony of PW-1 and the documents relied upon by him in the present case, the petitioner is entitled to the relief in his favour as prayed for in the petition. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent / ESIC stated that the petitioner has failed to prove its case against the respondent and the case of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the grounds as raised by the respondent in the WS.
10. Submissions heard. Record Perused and the documents filed by the parties in the present case are also gone through.
Digitally
signed by
FAHAD
ESIC No. 6/2018 FAHAD UDDIN
UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01
Page 11 of 34
13:02:12
+0530
Findings:
11. After going through the case of both the parties as well as the documents relied upon by them, the issue wise findings of this court are as under:-
Issue no:2 Whether this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the present matter in view of the previous decree passed under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC of Faridabad ESI Court? OPR The onus to prove this issue is upon the respondent. It may be noted that in the WS filed by the respondent/ESIC in the present case, it has been submitted in preliminary objection no.2 that the petitioner has concealed the material fact that a similar petition was filed by the petitioner in the Employees Insurance Court, Faridabad (Haryana) with ESI petition no. 223/2014 in order to get a favorable order from Faridabad Court despite the fact that the said court did not have the jurisdiction to try the case and the said petition in Faridabad ESI Court was dismissed in default by invoking the provisions of order 17 rule 3 CPC. In his evidence by way of affidavit, RW-1 Sh. T.K Chaudhary has reiterated and reaffirmed these facts and submitted that the present matter is covered under res-judicata and he has also relied upon order of case bearing CS-5584-2014 dated 04.07.2018 which is Ex. RW- 1/A on court record. A perusal of the said order dated 04.07.2018 reveals that the petition of the petitioner (M/s Jupiter Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.) against ESIC Faridabad through its Regional Director U/s 75 of ESI Act 1948 was dismissed in default by Faridabad Court by invoking the provisions under order 17 rule 3 CPC as the petitioner had failed to appear and did not produce any evidence before the said court despite various opportunities given ESIC No. 6/2018 Digitally signed by Page 12 of 34 FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:02:25 +0530 by the said court. The said petition was filed by the petitioner against the respondent/ESIC Faridabad in the year 2014. In his cross examination, RW-1 Sh. T.K Chaudhary has specifically admitted that the document Ex. RW-1/A is a case filed by the petitioner against ESIC Faridabad and recovery officer ESIC Faridabad in the year 2014 which was much before issuing notice Ex. RW-1/B in the present case. RW-1 Sh. T. K. Chaudhary was asked a specific question in his cross examination on 25.04.2025 that CS-55824/2014 dated 04.07.2018 filed in the Court of ESIC Faridabad on 09.07.2014 had a separate cause of action and present matter has no relation with it and in response to this question RW-1 stated that he did not remember. He was further asked the question that the present matter is not covered under res-judicata to which the witness replied that it is covered under res-judicata. At this stage perusal of the order dated 04.07.2018 passed by Ld. JMIC, Faridabad reveals that petition of petitioner (M/s Jupiter Hospitality) against ESIC, Faridabad / Recovery Officer, Faridabad was dismissed in default under order 17 rule 3 CPC by Faridabad court and as there was no adjudication on merits by the said court and the said case was filed by the petitioner in the year 2014 i.e. much before issuance of notice dated 10.01.2017 Ex. RW-1/B which is under challenge before this court, hence this court is of the view that the said matter has no bearing or relation with the issue raised by the petitioner in the present case before this court and does not operate as res- judicata in the present case. Further, respondent has not proved before this Court as to why the said petition was filed by the petitioner before ESIC Court, Faridabad and for what purpose as complete record of the said case has not been filed before this Court by the respondent. Hence, the jurisdiction of this court to Digitally signed by ESIC No. 6/2018 FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:Page 13 of 34
2026.04.01 13:02:33 +0530 deal with the present matter cannot be confused with the jurisdiction of ESIC Faridabad court as both the matters between Faridabad Court and this court seem to be different in nature and for different time period, consequently the earlier order dated 04.07.2018 passed in CS 55824-2014 has no relevance to determine the issues in the present case and for this reason issue no.2 framed in the present case is decided against the respondent accordingly.
Issue no:1 Whether the letter dated 05.10.2018 alongwith C- 19 dated 21.07.2016 and 08.06.2017 issued by the respondent to the petitioner is liable to be set aside? OPP
12. The onus to prove this issue is upon the petitioner. To prove its case against the respondent, the petitioner has got examined one witness i.e. PW1 Shri Rishipal Bharti who is the authorized representative of the petitioner in the present case. The said witness tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A on court record bearing his signatures at point A & B. In his affidavit, PW1 stated that vide letter dated 10.12.2014, the petitioner had informed the respondent for change of their office address from 3111, Sector A, Pocket B & C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi -70 to 1525, Ground Floor, Sector A, Pocket B & C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70. The petitioner received information from their banker i.e. HDFC Bank Ltd R. K. Puram, New Delhi vide letter dated 05.10.2018 and letter addressed to ICICI Bank dated 22.10.2018 issued by the respondent thereby directing the bank to attach the bank account of petitioner and its directors. The petitioner approached the respondent immediately with letter dated 05.10.2018 and contacted the officials of the respondent and during inquiry it was revealed that certain recovery of ESIC No. 6/2018 Digitally signed by Page 14 of 34 FAHAD Date:
FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN 2026.04.01 13:02:47 +0530 Rs.12,08,242/- and Rs.46,26,366/- being the principle amount is due and recoverable from the petitioner. The petitioner raised objection to the official of the respondent and the petitioner had never received any communication from the respondent for the inquiry / proceeding initiated by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 45 A of the Act and any order passed against the petitioner u/s 45 A of the Act. No communication was delivered to the petitioner and in the absence of effective delivery of notice / communication, any proceeding / order is bad in law, illegal and not maintainable and is liable to be quashed. The petitioner requested the official of the respondent and submitted that the demand raised by the respondent is on a higher side and this amount was never due and payable to the respondent by the petitioner and petitioner also showed the balance sheet and other documents available with the petitioner. The petitioner regularly deposited the contribution with the respondent and as per the challans filed on record, a sum of Rs.20,71,644/- was deposited during the period August, 2009 to February, 2013. The respondent already received Rs.4,92,770/- only after the attachment from the personal account of the director of the petitioner from ICICI Bank in the month of October, 2018. The respondent also received Rs.1,80,000/- from ICICI Bank after attachment of bank account of the petitioner in the month of 22.10.2018. As the records/ documents were very old, hence, the petitioner filed some of the documents which the petitioner could found and the petitioner is trying to search other documents / records and will file the same as soon as they are found. The amount of contribution determined by the respondent is arbitrary without supporting evidence and on the basis of imagination that too without proper service of notice u/s 45 A of Digitally ESIC No. 6/2018 Page 15 of 34 signed by FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:02:55 +0530 the Act. No order u/s 45 A of the Act was served to the petitioner and the respondent had not adopted the prescribed procedure under the act while determining the contribution amount for the period in question against the petitioner. The determination of amount of contribution by the respondent must not be without any basis and to determine the amount of contribution and to fix the liabilities, three things are essential- the employee, the employer and wages payable to an employee. Thus, the impugned orders for recovery are arbitrary, malafide and without justification under the provisions of ESI Act. The recovery order is bad in law as respondent should have identified the employees in the records of the petitioner so that the employee may get various benefits. C-18 was issued by the appropriate authority beyond 5 years and as prescribed under the Act and same is time barred as per provision of Section 45-A of ESI Act. Thus, the petitioner is not liable to pay the contribution for the period from September 2009 to December, 2011 and demand for the period is liable to be quashed by declaring the same as null and void.
13. In order to prove its case against the respondent, PW1 has also relied upon documentary evidence which is Ex. P-1 to Ex.P- 6 and Mark A and Mark B on court record. Copy of Board Resolution dated 28.10.2018 in favour of PW1 Sh. Rishipal Bharti thereby authorizing him to appear and depose in the present case on behalf of the petitioner is Ex.P-1. Copy of letter dated 10.12.2014 written by the petitioner to Director, ESIC thereby informing him about change in address of the petitioner company from 3111, Sector A, Pocket B & C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70 to 1525, Ground Floor, Sector A, Pocket B & C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70 is Mark A and the said letter was duly Digitally ESIC No. 6/2018 Page 16 of 34 signed by FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:03:04 +0530 received by the respondent on 10.12.2024 and bears the stamp of respondent. Copy of letter dated 05.10.2018 issued by the respondent to Branch Manager, HDFC Bank thereby restraining them from making any payment from the account of the petitioner and raising a claim for a sum of Rs 97,13,988/- is Mark B. Further, letter dated 22.10.2018 of the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank to freeze the account of the petitioner and its Directors is Ex.P-4. Copy of balance sheet of the petitioner for the period from 2007 to 2013 is Ex.P-5 (colly). Copy of ESI challans paid by the petitioner between the period from August, 2009 to February, 2013 is Ex. P-6 (colly).
14. In his cross-examination by counsel for the respondent, PW1 Shri Rishipal Bhati stated that the present petition has been filed by him and he stated that he did not have any authority to file the present petition. In response to a question, PW1 stated that he had not filed any other case in respect of contribution demanded by the respondent in any other court. Witness was also shown the document i.e. order dated 04.07.2018 of Ld. JMIC, First Class, Faridabad which is Ex.PW1/R1 and the witness admitted that the said order was passed in a case filed by the petitioner previously. He denied the suggestion that the petitioner is facing investigation by CBI in an FIR for fraudulent creation of respondent challans and again said that he did not know if any CBI investigation is ongoing. The witness was also shown Mark A and witness stated that he did not know who had submitted the said document and with whom. He stated that he cannot say if the petitioner is maintaining C-6 Register and the petitioner has an employee / accountant namely Afroz Ansari.
The witness was also shown the document i.e. letter dated Digitally ESIC No. 6/2018 signed by FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN Page 17 of 34 UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:03:14 +0530 23.06.2016 issued to the petitioner by CBI which is now Mark-
PW1/R2 and the witness stated that he is unaware of the said document. The witness stated that the petitioner had an employee namely Raju Agwania and he is no longer employee with the petitioner company and he can identify the signature of Raju Agwania as he had worked with him and witness was also shown the document i.e. calculation sheet dated 28.10.2015 which is marked as Mark PW1/R3 and the witness denied signature at point A to be signatures of Raju Agwania. He stated that he can produce some documents signed by Raju Agwania kept with the petitioner on NDOH. The witness stated that the petitioner never received any demand notice from the respondent at any point of time and he denied the suggestion that the petitioner company had not deposited the contributions for the period May 2013 to November 2014 with the respondent. The witness further denied the suggestion that the petitioner company had not paid the contribution for the period of September 2010, October, 2010, November, 2010, December, 2010, July 2012, August, 2012, November 2012, January, 2013, February 2013, April 2013, May 2013. The witness stated that he did not know if any document showing payments for the above said period had been filed in the present case or not and he stated that his counsel would be knowing the same. He stated that he did not know how and when the demand notices Mark B and P-4 were received and his counsel would be knowing the same. The witness stated that at present the documents which were available with the petitioner are already part of record and there are no other documents available with the petitioner. The witness denied the suggestion that the petitioner had not paid the contribution on time as per C- 6 register or that the petitioner is liable to make payments for Digitally signed by ESIC No. 6/2018 FAHAD UDDIN FAHAD UDDIN Date:
Page 18 of 342026.04.01 13:03:26 +0530 delayed contributions. He further denied the suggestion that the petitioner had concealed the facts about filing of a similar petition before Ld. JMIC at Faridabad and therefore present petition is barred. No other witness has been examined on behalf of petitioner in support of his case.
15. To disprove the case of petitioner, the respondent examined three witnesses i.e. RW1, RW2 and RW3. RW1 is Shri T. K. Chaudhary, Deputy Director, ESIC, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.RW1/1 on court record.
In his evidence by way of affidavit, RW1 stated that he is well conversant with the facts and circumstance of the present case. He stated that the petitioner had filed a petition before District Court, Faridabad under the same section with regard to same dispute against the respondent which they have concealed before this court and said suit was dismissed against the petitioner and hence, the present matter is covered under res-judicata. He stated that under provision of ESI Act, 1948 along with Regulations, he gave notice to the petitioner to pay the actual contribution amount due upon them vide letter dated 10.01.2017 and 28.10.2015. Thereafter, he referred the matter to the recovery officer for recovery of dues vide letter dated 21.07.2016 against the C-18 actual dated 28.10.2015. He further stated that the recovery officer issued Form CP-2 dated 16.06.2017 and notice to defaulter dated 27.07.2016. The inspection done by the respondent led to making of inspection report and said inspection report is Ex. RW-2/A on court record and the contents of WS filed by the respondent be read as part and parcel of affidavit which has not been repeated in the evidence by way of affidavit of RW1. Thus, RW1 prayed that the petition of the petitioner be Digitally signed by ESIC No. 6/2018 FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
Page 19 of 342026.04.01 13:03:35 +0530 dismissed with costs.
16. To support his case, RW1 also relied upon documentary evidence which is Ex.RW1/A to Ex. RW1/E and RW2/A on court record. Order of case bearing CS no.55824-2014 dated 04.07.2018 is Ex. RW1/A. Letter dated 10.01.2017 allegedly issued by the respondent to the petitioner for contribution amount of Rs.46,26,366/- for the period September 2009 to January, 2013 is Ex.RW1/B. Letter dated 28.10.2015 allegedly issued by the respondent to the petitioner regarding short contribution amount of Rs.13,62,325/- is Ex.RW1/C. Letter of reference dated 21.07.2016 written by Deputy Director, ESIC to recovery officer, ESIC regarding payments of contribution amount of Rs.13,62,325/- along with interest Rs.4,35,132/- and thus total amount comes to Rs.17,97,457/- is Ex.RW1/D. Form No. ESI CP-02 dated 16.06.2017 and notice to defaulter / petitioner dated 27.07.2016 for payments of contribution amount of Rs.17,97,507/- is Ex.RW1/E (colly). Inspection report dated 23.06.2016 for calculation of contribution amount from period September 2009 to January, 2013 in respect of employees of the petitioner is Ex.RW2/A.
17. In his cross-examination, RW1 Shri T. K. Chaudhary admitted as correct that he was working in the ESIC as Deputy Director and that document Ex.RW1/A is a case filed by the petitioner against ESIC Faridabad and recovery officer ESIC Faridabad in the year 2014 which was much before issuance of notice Ex. RW1/B. He stated that he did not remember if the suit bearing no.CS-55824/2014 dated 04.07.2018 filed in the court of ESIC Faridabad on 09.07.2014 had a separate cause of action and Digitally ESIC No. 6/2018 signed by FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN Page 20 of 34 UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:03:44 +0530 the present matter has no relation with it. He stated that the present matter is covered under res-judicata. He further stated that Shri V.K.Singh, Advocate had signed the WS and he got the authority and same has been placed on record. Written Statement was shown to the witness and he was asked a question and in response to the same, the witness stated that on the affidavit filed along with WS, Shri V. K. Singh had signed, however, Mr. Sanjay's name has also been seen on the affidavit. The attention of witness was also drawn at the document Mark-A which bears the stamp of office of respondent and after seeing the document, witness stated that as the image of the stamp on the document is not clear so it cannot be confirmed that the stamp is related to their office. In response to a further question, he stated that the contribution amount claimed for the period from September 2009 to January, 2013 for Rs.46,26,366/- vide document bearing RW1/B is not time barred u/s 45 A of ESI Act, 1948. He admitted as correct that the limitation of 05 yrs is applicable only on the orders passed U/s 45 A but the question of passing the order does not relate to section 45A. In response to a question , he stated that the notices Ex. RW-1/B, Ex. RW-1/C, RW-1/D and Ex. RW-1/E were delivered to the petitioner and the said notices were served through registered post to the address as per record of the office. In response to the question if he had placed on record any postal receipt or any tracking report or any proof of delivery of said notices, the witness replied that though the registered/speed post were sent to the vendor, but on verification of the court file, the same were not found by him as the records were bulky in nature and thus within the short period of time, he could not find the same. The witness further stated that as the document Ex. RW-2/A does not bear his Digitally ESIC No. 6/2018 Page 21 of 34 signed by FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:03:53 +0530 signatures, hence he cannot comment, if the said document bears the name, insurance number of the insured persons or any list has been enclosed with the said document and the concerned employees have been impleaded as respondents in the present case or not. In response to a question, whether any calculation sheet, wages, salary sheet, name and insurance number of the insured persons had been enclosed with the documents Ex. RW- 1/B, Ex.RW-1/C, Ex. RW-1/D & Ex. RW-1/E, the witness stated that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter and failed to pay contribution thereby evading the statutory govt. liabilities leading to non-receipt of medical and cash benefits to their workers without bothering that in the event of non-payment of contribution, the medical and cash benefits to their workers would be denied and thereby leading to suffering of families of the workers. In the present case as per office record, he found that the petitioner was defaulting by not paying the contribution thereby denying the basic right of their workers. Hence the period of default was calculated on the basis of non-compliance (online statement) and the notices were served. He further stated that as per online record, the contribution payable has been depicted and at the same time, the period of default were also shown and hence the calculation were made on online contribution payable to those periods where the petitioner did not deposit the contribution. He denied the suggestion that the calculation of contribution have been calculated on the basis of surmises and not based on the basis of documents. He further stated that the claim for the period w.e.f September 2009 to January 2013 was issued U/s 40 and hence it is not time barred.
18. Another witness examined on behalf of the respondent in ESIC No. 6/2018 Digitally signed by FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN Page 22 of 34 UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:04:03 +0530 the present case is RW-2 Sh. Kumar Subodh Prasad who is the Assistant Director ESIC and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. RW-2/1 on court record. In his affidavit, RW-2 stated that he alongwith Sh. Gurmeet Singh Anand was SSO with regard to the present matter and as such he is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case as per records available with the respondent. He stated that he was assigned to assist the CBI authorities for calculation of ESI contributions and the said calculation sheet was done which is correct and the said calculation sheet and letter dated 23.06.2016 is Ex. RW-2/A on court record. RW-2 stated that the petitioner's case be dismissed alongwith cost.
19. In his cross examination, RW-2 stated that he has tendered the document Ex. RW-2/A in his evidence and it is correct that the documents were provided to him by the CBI for the period from September 2009 to January 2013 and not by Sh. Afroz Ansari, Accounts executive of the petitioner as mentioned in document Ex. RW-2/A. He further stated that CBI had provided the salary and wages sheet of ONGC, Salary and wages sheet provided by CBI to him have not been enclosed with the document Ex. RW-2/A. He further stated that he was provided computer system by the CBI officials inside their premises and the CBI officials provided salary and wages sheet and bills of ONGC clients and on the basis of documents provided, he was asked to prepare ESIC dues calculation sheet.
Accordingly, he prepared the same on their computer system, however, he was not handed over any copy of the same nor he asked for it. None of the documents provided to him by the CBI officials were signed in his presence by them. Neither copy of seizure memo of documents seized by the CBI provided to him ESIC No. 6/2018 Digitally signed by Page 23 of 34 FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:04:12 +0530 nor he had placed it on the judicial record. He stated that he had not mentioned any date of inspection except 19.05.2016. He further stated that he had visited the office of CBI as and when they called him and it is correct that he had only assisted the CBI for inspection and on the basis of documents provided by CBI, he had made calculation sheet. He himself had not done any inspection and it is correct that he had not filed any documents relating to salary and wages for the period of September 2009 to January 2013 as the same was not provided by the CBI authorities. The witness was shown the document Ex. RW-2/A and after seeing the said documents, the witness stated that it does not bear the signatures of any CBI authority. He denied the suggestion that calculation of contribution have been calculated on the basis of surmises and not based on the basis of documents.
20. The next witness got examined by the respondent is RW-3 Sh. Gurmeet Singh Anand, Ex. Asst. Director ESIC, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. RW-3/A on court record. In his affidavit, RW-3 stated that he was the concerned SSO with regard to the present matter and as such he is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the matter as per the records available with the respondent. He stated that he was assigned to assist the CBI authorities for calculation of ESI contributions and the said calculation was done which is correct and the said calculation sheet and letter dated 23.06.2016 is Ex.
RW-2/A on court record. He also prayed that the petition of the petitioner be dismissed alongwith cost.
21. In his cross examination, the witness was asked the Digitally ESIC No. 6/2018 Page 24 of 34 signed by FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:04:21 +0530 question whether any list and names of insured persons, wage sheet, wages record and any other record in respect of petitioner have been enclosed alongwith document Ex. RW-2/A to which the witness replied that no such records were produced and hence not enclosed. He was asked the question that as per document Ex. RW-2/A, the contribution had been claimed on 23.06.2016 for the period September 2009 to January 2013, out of which partly pertains to beyond 05 yrs. The witness replied that it is correct that it included some period beyond 05 yrs. He stated that they were provided with the contribution sheets duly signed by the representative of the petitioner and those were not signed by the insured persons. He further stated that the contribution calculation sheets were enclosed with the letter dated 23.06.2016. In response to a question the witness denied that the documents enclosed with Ex. RW-2/A at page no. 35 & 36 bears the signatures of petitioner or his representative. He further stated that these contribution calculation sheets were prepared on the basis of the documents provided by the CBI and the documents provided by the CBI were looked into at the CBIs place and the document Ex. RW-2/A does not bear the signature of any CBI official. He further stated that the contribution was calculated on the basis of said documents. No other fact was deposed by RW-2 in his cross examination in the present case.
22. At this stage since the petitioner has invoked section 45 -A in the present case and alleged that the impugned orders were passed against the petitioner under section 45 A, section 45 A of ESI Act 1948 which is relevant for the present case may be reproduced as under for reference:-
45 A. Determination of contribution in certain cases.- (1) Digitally ESIC No. 6/2018 signed by FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN Page 25 of 34 UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:04:30 +0530 Where in respect of a factory or establishment no returns, particulars, registers or records are submitted, furnished or maintained in accordance with the provisions of section 44 or any [Social Security Officer] or other official of the Corporation referred to in sub-section (2) of section 45 is [prevented in any manner] by the principal or immediate employer or any other person, in exercising his functions or discharging his duties under section 45, the Corporation may on the basis of information available to it, by order, determine the amount of contributions payable in respect of the employees of that factory or establishment:
Provided that no such order shall be passed by the Corporation unless the principal or immediate employer or the person in charge of the factory or establishment has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Provided further that no such order shall be passed by the Corporation in respect of the period beyond five years from the date on which the contribution shall become payable.
(2) Any order made by the Corporation under sub-section (1) shall be sufficient proof of the claim of the Corporation under section 75 or for recovery of the amount determined by such order as an arrear of land revenue under section 45B or the recovery under section 45C to 45 I.
23. Section 45 A of the Act empowers the Corporation to determine amount of contribution payable by employer in cases, where the employer refuses to co-operate or fails to abide by relevant provisions of law. It applies when the normal procedure prescribed by the Act cannot be adhered to on account of the Digitally signed by ESIC No. 6/2018 FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN Page 26 of 34 UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:04:38 +0530 failure on part of establishment concerned in submitting the returns or maintaining the particulars registers or records in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It also applies in cases where any inspector or other officials authorized by Corporation is obstructed by the employer in exercising his function or discharging his duties under the Act. The power to levy assessment on the basis of best judgment is not an arbitrary power. It is an assessment on the basis of best judgment. In other words the assessment must be based on some relevant material. It is not a power that can be exercised under the sweet-will and pleasure of the concerned authorities. The Act contemplates that the assessment is to be subject to judicial review under section 75 before the ESI Court. There is further appeal provided to the High Court under section 82 of the Act provided the substantial question of laws are made out. It is clear that in view of these statutory limitations on the power exercisable under section 45 A, it is absolutely necessary for the Corporation to pass a reasoned order giving the method of computation of the best judgment assessment under section 45-A. An assessment should not be arbitrary and should not be a mere guess work but should be rational and based on material. If that be the position, there cannot be any difficulty for giving reasons or furnishing mode of calculation or assessment. Proviso to section 45A envisages that no order shall be passed by the Corporation unless the principal or immediate employer or person in charge of the factory or establishment has been given reasonable opportunity of being heard. It could be seen that section 45 A is in the nature of a best assessment judgment on the basis of the information collected by the Inspector and if a determination is to be given, the person concerned against whom any adverse order is to be made, he or Digitally signed by ESIC No. 6/2018 FAHAD UDDIN FAHAD UDDIN Date:Page 27 of 34
2026.04.01 13:04:47 +0530 she must be heard. Employees State Insurance Corporation must give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person against whom the order under section 45 A is to be passed. It is therefore clear that though the ESI Corporation is not obliged to give a prior show cause notice before initiating proceedings under section 45-A, still it was obligatory after deciding to make an assessment under section 45 A to observe principal of natural justice during the enquiry under section 45-A. The Corporation has to furnish the material information and the method of assessment proposed and ask the employer to meet the same. In case the employer furnishes any material in rebuttal, it has to consider the same and pass an order giving reasons.
24. In the case of "M/s Carborandum Universal Ltd. vs ESI Corporation [Civil appeal no. 14858 of 2025, arising out of SLP (Civil) no. 12442 of 2024] decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 18.12.2025, it was observed that:-
From an analysis of the provisions contained in Section 45- A , it is seen that the said provision would come into effect when no returns, particulars, registers or records are submitted, furnished or maintained in accordance with the provisions of section 44. It would also come into play if any inspector or other official of the corporation is prevented in any manner by the principal or immediate employer or any other person exercising his functions or discharging his duties under section 45. In such an eventuality the corporation may on the basis of information available to it, pass an order determining the amount of contributions payable in respect of the employees of that factory or establishment. As per the proviso to sub-section (1) no such order shall be passed by the corporation without giving a Digitally ESIC No. 6/2018 Page 28 of 34 signed by FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:04:56 +0530 reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer.
In other words there are two conditions which must be satisfied before section 45 A can be invoked. Firstly no returns, particulars, registers or records in respect of a factory or establishment are submitted, furnished or maintained in accordance with the provisions of section 44. Secondly any inspector or other official of the corporation is prevented by the employer in exercising his functions or discharging his duties under section 45.
Section 45 A of the Employees State Insurance Act would provide for determination of contributions in certain cases. A reading of the above section would reveal that when the records are not produced by the establishment to the corporation and when there is no co-operation, the corporation has got the power to make assessment and determine the amount under section 45 A and recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue under section 45B of the Act. In other words when there is failure in production of records and when there is no co-operation , the corporation can determine the amount and recover the same as arrears of land revenue under section 45B. But on the other hand , if the records are produced and if there is co-operation , the assessment has to be made and it can be used as a sufficient proof of the claim of the corporation under section 75 before the ESI Court. Thus Section 45 A is designed as a mechanism which the corporation may employ when there is a default qua section 44 or when statutory inspection under section 45 becomes impossible on account of the conduct of the employer. The foundation for exercise of power under section 45 A is either non-production of records or absence of cooperation or obstruction of inspection. The power is conceived as a best Digitally signed by ESIC No. 6/2018 FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:Page 29 of 34
2026.04.01 13:05:06 +0530 judgment determination akin to similar provisions in taxing statutes. What is equally significant is the clear statement of law that when records are produced and co-operation is forthcoming , assessment must be carried out under section 75(2)
(a) and not under section 45A. The distinction drawn is therefore fundamental to the statutory architecture. Section 45 A is not meant to be an alternative mode of computation at the option of the corporation. It is a residuary power available only when the employer makes a default under section 44 or disables the corporation from carrying out inspection under section 45.
25. Now coming to the facts of the present case , from the evidence of PW-1 Sh. Rishipal Bharti, it is clear that the petitioner vide letter dated 10.12.2014 had informed to the Director ESIC, Okhla, Phase-I about change of their address from 3111, Sector-A, Pocket B & C Vasnat Kunj New Delhi -70 to 1525, Ground floor, Sector-A, Pocket B & C Vasant Kunj New Delhi-70 and the said letter dated 10.12.2014 was received in the office of respondent/ESIC on 10.12.2014 itself but still notice dated 10.01.2017 & 28.10.2015 which are Ex. RW-1/B & Ex. RW-1/C were issued at the old address of the petitioner i.e. 3111, Sector-A, Pocket B & C Vasnat Kunj New Delhi -70. In his cross examination RW-1 Sh. T.K Chaudhary has admitted that the notices Ex. RW-1/B, RW-1/C, RW-1/D & RW-1/E were served through registered post to the address of the petitioner as per record of the office but no such record has been placed on record by the respondent in the present case. There is no stamp of the petitioner company regarding service of said notice through authorized person of the petitioner on the notices Ex. RW-1/B & Ex. RW-1/C and it is not clear whether the writing on Digitally signed by ESIC No. 6/2018 Page 30 of 34 FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 13:05:16 +0530 Ex. RW-1/C is of Shri Raju Agwania only ,and he was the authorized representative of the petitioner company to receive the said notice on behalf of the petitioner. RW-1 has further admitted in his cross examination that as the document Ex. RW-2/A was not signed by him , hence he cannot comment if the said document bears, the name, insurance number of the insured person nor any list has been enclosed with the said document. Further as per the case of the petitioner he was regularly depositing contribution amount with the respondent vide challans placed on record Ex. P-6 (Colly) and deposited total Rs 20,71,644/- during the period August 2009 to February 2013.. However, the respondent has not denied this fact anywhere in the present case nor put a single question contradicting the said fact during the entire cross examination of PW-1. Further the assessment of the respondent/ESIC seems to be based on the calculation sheet and letter dated 23.06.2016 which Ex. RW-2/A on court record. In his cross examination RW-2 Sh. Kumar Subodh Prasad Assistant Director ESIC has stated that the said documents were provided to him by the CBI for the period from September 2009 to January 2013 and not by Sh. Afroz Ansari accounts officer of the petitioner company as mentioned in the document Ex.RW2/A. He further stated that CBI had provided the salary and wages sheet of ONGC clients and on the basis of the documents provided, he was asked to prepare ESIC dues calculation sheet and accordingly he prepared the same on their computer system and he was not handed over any copy of the same nor he asked for it. None of the documents provided to him by CBI officials were signed in his presence by them neither copy of any seizure memo of documents seized by CBI provided to him nor he placed it on judicial record. He admitted as Digitally signed by FAHAD ESIC No. 6/2018 FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01 Page 31 of 34 13:05:27 +0530 correct that he had only assisted CBI for inspection and on the basis of documents provided by CBI, he made calculation sheet and he himself had not done any inspection. He further admitted as correct that he had not filed any documents relating to salary and wages for the period of September 2009 to January 2013 as the same was not provided by the CBI authorities . The witness was also shown the document Ex. RW-2/A and after seeing the document, the witness stated that it does not bear the signature of any CBI official. Thus the entire exercise carried on by the said officers of ESIC in calculating the contribution amount on the basis of unverified and unauthenticated document Ex. RW-2/A seems to be doubtful and it is clear that before calculation of alleged contribution amount on the basis of calculation sheet Ex. RW-2/A, no independent inquiry or verification of said records with the records of the petitioner after inspection has been undertaken by the officers of respondent/ESIC. RW-3 Sh. Gurmeet Singh Ex. Asst. Director ESIC has stated in his cross examination that no list and name of insured persons, wage sheet, wages record and any other record in respect of petitioner has been enclosed alongwith the document Ex. RW-2/A and the said document Ex. RW-2/A partly included contribution for the period beyond 05 yrs. He further admitted that the page no. 35 & 36 of the document Ex. PW-2/A were not signed by any representative of the petitioner company. He further admitted that the contribution calculation sheets were prepared on the basis of the documents provided by the CBI and the said documents were looked into at CBI's place and the document Ex. RW-2/A does not bear the signature of any CBI official.
26. Hence, after going through the entire testimony of the Digitally signed by ESIC No. 6/2018 FAHAD FAHAD UDDIN UDDIN Date:
Page 32 of 342026.04.01 13:05:37 +0530 petitioner as well as respondent witnesses and the documents filed on record by them, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has been able to prove its case against the respondent /ESIC on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and since no proper hearing and opportunity of being heard had been given by the respondent/ESIC to the petitioner while determining the amount of contribution either on adhoc or actual basis as alleged by the respondent/ESIC for the relevant period, thus the letter dated 05.10.2018 alongwith C-19 dated 21.07.2016 and 08.06.2017 issued by the respondent to the petitioner seems to be bad in law and in violation of the principal of natural justice. In the facts and circumstances of the present case notice dated 10.01.2017 and 28.10.2015 Ex. RW-1/B and Ex. RW-1/C and other notices Ex. RW-1/D & Ex. RW-1/E cannot be deemed to be properly served upon the petitioner since no postal record regarding services of notices upon the petitioner has been placed on record by the respondent and it is also not clear whether to whom they were served by hand or to any authorized person of the petitioner company as no satisfactory proof has been given by the respondent to this effect before this court. Further the calculation sheet Ex. RW-2/A on which the entire calculation of contribution amount against the petitioner is based does not seem to be a verified document since as per the cross examination of respondent witnesses the said document was prepared on the documents, salary and wages sheet provided by CBI relating to ONGC clients, it was prepared on their computer system and it does not bear the signatures of any CBI authority and no inspection himself was carried on by the officers of respondent while preparing the said document. Hence the demand for payment of alleged contribution by the respondent Digitally signed by ESIC No. 6/2018 FAHAD FAHAD Date:
UDDIN UDDIN 2026.04.01 Page 33 of 34 13:05:46 +0530 against the petitioner cannot survive due to the said reasons and consequently the letter dated 05.10.2018, 21.07.2016 and 08.06.2017/16.06.2017 passed by the respondent/ESIC against the petitioner are set aside/quashed with the directions to the respondent/ESIC to make a fresh assessment against the petitioner qua the contribution amount for the period under challenge either on the basis of inspection done or production of records by the petitioner and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in this regard. The respondent/ESIC is also directed to make due adjustments of the already recovered amount from the petitioner in the present case including the 25% amount already deposited by the petitioner with the respondent in terms of order dated 26.09.2022 passed by this Court and to refund the amount if any, found in excess after due inquiry and proper adjustment as per rules. Ordered accordingly.
With these directions and observations, the application of the petitioner under Section 75 of ESI Act, 1948 is allowed / disposed of.
No further action is required.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Copy of Judgment be sent to Regional Director/ Recovery officer ESIC for intimation and necessary action.
Announced in the Open Court Digitally
on 20.03.2026
signed by
FAHAD
FAHAD UDDIN
UDDIN Date:
2026.04.01
13:05:55
+0530
(FAHAD UDDIN)
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
ESIC No. 6/2018 Page 34 of 34