2025:JHHC:26411 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 4485 of 2015 -- Mahakaal Enterprises, through its partner Sunil Kumar Jha, son of Sita Ram Jha, resident of H.No. 14, Rain Basera Colony, Manjhi Tola, P.S-Adityapur, District-Saraikela- Kharswan ......Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Labour and Employment, Nepal House, P.O & P.S- Doranda, Dsitrict-Ranchi 2. The Director, Jharkhand Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, P.O&PS- Namkum, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Director, Regional Office Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, P.O&PS- Namkum, Ranchi .....Respondents -- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner(s) : None For the State : A.C to G.P.-VI For the Resp-ESIC : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Adv. -- 06/26.08.2025 None appears for the petitioner even on repeated call. Even on the last occasion, when the case was listed for hearing before this Court, the petitioner was not represented by his counsel. Accordingly, this Court is proceeding in the matter on the basis of available records and assistance by the State Counsel. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs: For quashing of the order dated 10.11.2014 passed by Respondent no. 3 in the proceeding under section 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, whereby their contribution has been assessed with effect from November, 2009 to June, 2013, directing the petitioner to deposit the due amount of Rs. 4,50,450/- (Rupees Four Lacs Fifty Thousand Four Hundred Fifty only) within 60 days from the date of the order, failing which recovery proceeding under section 45-G of the said Act, shall be initiated, inasmuch as the said order has been passed without giving notice to the petitioner and without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner in the said proceeding violating its fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. 2025:JHHC:26411 2 3. It appears that the petitioner has challenged the order passed under Section 45A of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred as ESI Act) and the same is appealable under Section 45AA, but from the record, it appears that no appeal has been filed by the Petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent-ESIC and State jointly submits that the Petitioner has not availed alternative remedy; as such, deciding this case under Article 226 would not be justified. Further, after a lapse of so many years, the petitioner cannot even file an appeal under Section 45AA of the Act; however, the ESI Act itself provides that if there is lis between the employee and the corporation; then the concerned employee may approach the Employees State Insurance Court–cum-Labour Court under Section 75 of ESI Act. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to take alternative remedy, if so advised. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk