M/S G.K.P. Construction Project Comapny v. Union Of India And 2 Others

Petitioner :- M/S G.K.P. Construction Project Comapny Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Abhay Pratap Singh, Jyotsna Srivastava, Rajesh Tewari Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the prayer to quash the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by Assistant Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Sub-Regional Office, ESIC Hospital, Campus, 2nd floor, Pandeypur, Varanasi.

It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that at no point of time any notice or opportunity has been provided to the petitioner. In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon paragraph-8 of the writ petition, which reads as follows :- "8. That respondent NO.3 passed an order dated 10.03.2025, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, even in the said order it has been stated that notice has been issued to the petitioner for submitting his explanation on 14.12.2021 but same has not been served upon the petitioner and further be stated in the said notice that second notice has been issued on 30.03.2022 to the petitioner for hearing before him but the said notice has never been served upon the petitioner, due to which, he could not appear before the respondent NO.3, as such order dated 10.03.2025 has been passed in the gross violation to the principle of natural justice. Copy of the order dated 10.03.2025, passed by respondent NO.3 is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO.3 to this writ petition. "

An affidavit has been filed in support of the writ petition by the petitioner himself, which has been sworn on the basis of record. In view of the same, the Court is of the opinion that on the basis of the swearing of the aforesaid paragraph namely-8 presumption could not be drawn that the opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner.

In this view of the matter, an option was given by the Court to the counsel for the petitioner to file a better affidavit and matter was directed to list immediately after 10 days.

In response to the same, it is stated by counsel for the petitioner that the Court will pass appropriate orders in the matter after noting down the contentions raised by him.

A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Abhay Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no.2 & 3 that against the aforesaid order statutory alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 45 (AA) of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Section 45 (AA) of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 reads as follows :- "If an employer is not satisfied with the order referred to in section 45A, he may prefer an appeal to an appellate authority as may be provided by regulation, within sixty days of the date of such order after depositing twenty- five per cent. of the contribution so ordered or the contribution as per his own calculation, whichever is higher, with the corporation: Provided that if the employer finally succeeds in the appeal, the Corporation shall refund such deposit to the employer together with such interest as may be specified in the regulation. "