Judgment · High Court · 2012
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 29 May 2012
- Bench
- B K SHARMA
Provisions considered
- ESI Act, 1948 s. 75
Judgment
In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has indicated that the contr ibution may not be deducted/paid as per the demand made by the respondent No. 3. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that such illega l demand is beyond the purview of the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 3 and t hat the respondent No. 3 wrongly assessed the amount in question. There being alternative remedy to the petitioner as provided in Section 75 of th e ESI Act, 1948, about which a submission was made by the learned counsel for th e respondent as recorded in the order dated 21.12.2011, I am of the considered o pinion that the petitioner may pursue his remedy as provided under Section 75 of the Act. It is ordered accordingly.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
ESI Act, 1948 — s. 75.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 29 May 2012. The bench was B K SHARMA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.