OD-5 WPO/17/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S. PURNASAR SPECIALITIES COMPANY PVT. LTD. -VERSUS- THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL) Date : 10th September, 2026 Appearance: Mr. Ranjay Dey, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bratin Kumar Dey, Adv. Ms. Anjana Banerjee, Adv. …. for the petitioner. Ms. Supriya Dubey, Adv. ...for the respondent. The Court: The writ application has been preferred being aggrieved by an order dated September 22/23, 2023 passed by the respondent no.2/ESI authorities under Section 85-B of the ESI Act, 1948. Vide the impugned order, the respondent authority proceeded to pass an ex parte order imposing damages upon the petitioner herein. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel, Mr. De, appearing for the petitioner that just on the first day of hearing fixed after issuance of a show cause notice, the matter was concluded. Not a second day was fixed by the authorities who acted in undue haste in passing the ex parte order 2 imposing damages. It is submitted that the case could have been posted for ex parte hearing and one opportunity could have been given to the petitioner herein to represent its case, in the interest of justice. It is further contended by Mr. De, that the impugned order has been passed without providing any reasons whatsoever for imposing the said damages which amounts to Rs.1,04,25,547/-. Mr. De, has relied on the judgment in the case of Employees’s State Insurance Corporation vs. HMT Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2008) 3 SCC 35, wherein at paragraph 21 thereof the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “21. A penal provision should be construed strictly. Only because a provision has been made for levy of penalty, the same by itself would not lead to the conclusion that penalty must be levied in all situations. Such an intention on the part of the legislature is not decipherable from Section 85-B of the Act. When a discretionary jurisdiction has been conferred on a statutory authority to levy penal damages by reason of an enabling provision, the same cannot be construed as imperative. Even otherwise, an endeavour should be made to construe such penal provisions as discretionary, unless the statute is held to be mandatory in character.” On perusal of the impugned order and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it appears that the first day when the matter was fixed for hearing, after service of a show cause notice, the 3 respondent no.2/ESI authority noted that the notice was served but none appeared on behalf of the establishment and on the same day, the said authority proceeded to pass the ex parte unreasoned order. It appears that absolutely no reason has been recorded by the authority concerned while passing the impugned order imposing damages. In a case where a party does not appear before a forum, it is the duty of the forum to decide an issue or the case in accordance with law by following the principles of natural justice (reasoned order) and to ensure that there is no abuse of process of law. Just because of a single day failure on the part of a party to appear for hearing, in spite of notice, and the forum proceeds to decide the case against such party, without passing an order in accordance with law, by providing reasons as to why the conclusion was arrived at is not only against the principles of natural justice but also an abuse of the process of law. Considering the fact that principles of natural justice has been clearly not followed by the authority in the impugned order, which does not record any reasons for arriving at the said conclusion, the same is set aside. WPO/17/2024 is, thus, disposed of remanding the matter back to the concerned ESI authority to re-hear the matter on serving a fresh notice upon the parties. On hearing the parties afresh, the authority shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, preferably within sixty days from the date of communication of this order. 4 It is made clear that the parties should positively attend the hearing and, in case, there is a failure again on the part of the establishment, the ESI authority/respondent no.2 shall proceed in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order based on the materials on record. (SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.) A.Sadhukhan