Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12786 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1707 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Tirupati Balajee Educational And Welfare Trust Thru. Its Secy. Prabhat Tripathi Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Labour And Deptt. Of Employment,New Delhi And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Mohan,D.P. Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Shishir Pradhan Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Krishna Lal Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.1 - Union of India and Shri Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3. 2. Present petition has been filed challenging the a prohibitory order dated 15.01.2025 passed against the petitioner as well as the recovery order dated 01.01.2024. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that without passing an order under Section 45A of Employees' State Insurance Act (for short 'the Act'), the prohibitory order has been passed which is contrary to the mandate of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, based upon instructions, states that at the time of the visit of the officer in exercise of powers under Section 45 of the Act, the petitioner had given a written reply stating that on account of error, the amount of contribution amounting to Rs.1,11,326/- could not be paid. It was further recorded that at the time of inspection it was found that the firm M/S Tirupati Balajee Educational And Welfare Trust was registered in the year 2017 and was accorded a number, however, he himself admitted that he could not deposit the contribution on account of error. It was also noticed that once again a new code was obtained. Thus, based upon the written admission of the petitioner, straightway recovery proceedings have been initiated. 5. In terms of the mandate of the Act being Section 44 prescribes for the principal employer to submit returns in the form as may be prescribed, and Section 44(2) empowers the corporation to call upon to furnish the returns as are required to be filed under Section 44(1). In the absence of any report/return being filed, the manner of proceeding is prescribed under Section 45 and based upon the information that is gathered under Section 45, the determination has to be made under Section 45A. 6. In the present case, there is no material to suggest that the return was not filed; the letter written by the petitioner, which is the foundation for passing of the impugned order, cannot be termed as a return required to be filed under Section 44 of the Act. Admittedly, the Social Security Officer had visited the premises exercising his powers under Section 45 and had obtained a written communication from the petitioner, however, despite the said written communication it was incumbent upon the officer concerned to have determined the contribution under Section 45A of the Act, which has not been done in the present case. 7. In view of the said finding, the impugned prohibitory order dated 15.01.2025 cannot be sustained and is quashed. Recovery order dated 01.01.2024 is also quashed. 8. The respondents would be at liberty to pass order under Section 45A of the Act and take such steps as may be advised under law. 9. Present petition is allowed in above terms. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench